Latest issue of JTS

See below for the list of contents from the latest issue of JTS.

James Barr
Is God a Liar? (Genesis 2–3)—and Related Matters

Jane Heath
Ezekiel Tragicus and Hellenistic Visuality: The Phoenix at Elim

Guy Williams
An Apocalyptic and Magical Interpretation of Paul's ‘Beast Fight’ in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 15:32)

John C. Poirier
Symbols of Wisdom in James 1:17

Joseph G. Mueller
Post-Baptismal Chrismation in Second-Century Syria: A Reconsideration of the Evidence

Theodore de Bruyn
P. RYL. III.471: A Baptismal Anointing Formula Used as an Amulet

Paul L. Gavrilyuk
Universal Salvation in the Eschatology of Sergius Bulgakov

Michael C. Rea
Polytheism and Christian Belief

Johan Leemans
‘At that Time the Group Around Maximian was Enjoying Imperial Power’: an Interpolation in Gregory of Nyssa's Homily in Praise of Theodore

Bruce A. Lowe
Oh DIA! How is Romans 4:25 to be Understood?

[Bruce Lowe is a good friend of a mine. He has a Ph.D in Chemistry, he's an ordained Pressy ministry, and is doing his Ph.D in NT at Macquarie Uni under Chris Forbes and Bruce Winter. It's a good article and I think the title is very witty! I wonder who gave him the idea? Romans 4.25 is a trickly little verse and I think Bruce handles it well].

Pauline Theology Resources: Barry Smith

Dr. Barry Smith of Atlantic Baptist University has an excellent page on Pauline Theology. It contains essentially his lecture notes, but they are well researched and well set out (temptating as it is to cut and paste them into my own notes, I sharen't). Worth browsing over.

New Blog by Alan Streett

Alan Streett has his just started his own blog called Already/Not Yet that is dedicated to the topic of apologetic related items from news around the world.

New Book on New Testament Theology

The Nature of New Testament Theology: Essays in Honour of Robert Morgan

Edited by: CHRISTOPHER ROWLAND (Queen's College, Oxford) and CHRISTOPHER TUCKETT (Pembroke College, University of Oxford)

Foreword by Rowan Williams

1. History and Theology in New Testament Studies: John Ashton (Oxford University)

2. Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective: John Barton (Oxford University)

3. Apocalypticism and New Testament Theology: Adela Yarbro Collins (Yale University)

4. New Testament Interpretation as Interpersonal Communion: The Case for a Socio-Theological Hermeneutics: Philip Esler (University of St Andrews)

5. The Nature of New Testament Theology: Morna Hooker (Cambridge University)

6. Does a Theology of the Canonical Gospels Make Sense? Luke Timothy Johnson (Emory University)

7. Paul in New Testament Theology: Leander E. Keck (Yale University)

8. The Contribution of Reception History to a New Testament Theology: Ulrich Luz (University of Berne, Switzerland)

9. Women in Early Christianity: The Challenge to a New Testament Theology: Margaret Y. MacDonald (St Francis Xavier University)

10. Deutero-Paulinism, Pseudonymity and the Canon: John Muddiman (Mansfield College, Oxford)

11. Towards an Alternative to New Testament Theology: 'Individual Eschatology' as an Example: Heikki Räisänen (University of Helsinki)

12. 'Action is the Life of All': New Testament Theology and Practical Theology: Christopher Rowland (Queens College, Oxford)

13. Theory of Primitive Christian Religion and New Testament Theology: an Evolutionary Essay: Gerd Theissen (University of Heidelberg, Germany)

14. Does the 'Historical Jesus' belong within a 'New Testament Theology'? Christopher Tuckett (Oxford University)

15. The Gospel of John and New Testament Theology: Francis Watson (University of Aberdeen)

16. The Theology of the Cross and the Quest for a Doctrinal Norm: Michael Wolter (University of Bonn, Germany)

17. The Trinity and the New Testament: Frances Young (University of Birmingham)

God's Righteousness as Covenant Faithfulness

In continuing my research on justification I've been reading a bit of the history of the topic and stumbled upon an interesting find. I think I have found the earliest reference to dikaiosyne theou ("righteousness of God") being understood as "God's faithfulness" in the writings of the little known English reformer George Joye (d. 1553), who wrote:

“The righteousness which is allowed before God that cometh of faith is sometimes in scripture called His mercy or favour towards us and in us, whereby He is moved for Christ’s blood sake to promise us forgiveness and sometimes is taken for His truth and faithfulness in the performing of His promise and of this He is called just, righteous, faithful and true.”

Cited in D.B. Knox, The Doctrine of Faith in the reign of Henry VIII [London: James Clark & Co., 1961], 56.

Mark Seifrid on Justification and the Last Judgment

Mark Seifrid's 2000 faculty address at SBTS on Justification by Faith is available in MP3 and is worth listening too. One of the best expositions of Romans 2:12-16 that you'll ever hear!

Ben Myers on Wright in Brisbane

Over at Faith and Theology, Ben Myers is preparing to post his take on Wright's lectures in Brisbane and also an interview with Wright. Will be one to watch.

Quotes from Hengel

I've been reading through Martin Hengel, “The Stance of the Apostle Paul Toward the Law in the Unknown Years Between Damascus and Antioch,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volumes 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 75-103, and these are some cool quotes I fished out.

“For him, the encounter with the Resurrected One near Damascus set before him the question of the law or Christ in the form of a soteriological alternative. For Judaism of that time the Torah was in manifold expression the essence of slavaiton, and could be identified with the fundamental religious metaphor, “life”. [m.Abot. 2.7; Avemarie]. Since the opposition between Torah and Jesus of Nazareth had made him into a persecutor, now the relationship between Christ and Torah had to become a fundamental issue, in which the inversion of the opposition immediately because apparent: he, the Resurrected One is zwh& for those who believe (2 Cor 4:11-12; cf. 2:16).” (p. 84) - for a similar view see Terence L. Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s Christ-Torah Antithesis,” CBQ 51 (1989): 655-82.

“Why Arabia?” is simple. As the offspring of Israel the “Arabians” were the genealogically and geographically closest physical relatives of Israel among the “Gentiles,” since they, too, were descendents of Abraham. The offspring of Esau, the Edomites, had already become Jews under Hyrcanus and were no longer “Gentiles”. (p. 89).

“Had the earliest church in Jerusalem not recognized the Pauline mission to the Gentiles, with its particular criticism of the law, the apostle would have “run in vain,” i.e. he could not have continued it (Gal 2:2). The perspective frequently adopted today, that earliest Christianity displayed an unbridled diversity, stand in contradiction not only to the statement of Paul (1 Cor 15:11), to his remarkable attachment to Jerusalem in his later period when his connection to Antioch become looser, but also the unity of the church in the entirely of the first and second centuries, which the New Testament and post-apostolic literature attests.” (pp. 95-96).

Criswell Theological Review on-line

I received an email today from Alan Streett saying that CTR was soon to be available on-line at their site Criswell Journal.

Alan Streett has done a sterling job as an editor of getting CTR up and running again. Recent issues have covered contentious topics like the Kingdom of God, New Perspective on Paul, and the next issue is dedicated to the Emergent Church featuring an interview with Brian McLaren. All good stuff.

Gabler on Biblical Theology

In the history of Biblical Theology considerable influence has been exerted by J.P. Gabler's in his seminal essay: 'De iusto discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus’, in T.A. Gabler and J.G. Gabler (eds.), Kleinere theologische Schriften, II (Ulm, Germany: Verlag der Stettinischen Buchhandlung, 1831): 179-98.

For those that don't know, an accessible English translation is available from the follow journal article:

John Sandys-Wunsch and Laurence Eldredge. "J. P. Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of His Originality." Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (1980): 133-58.

Is Gabler really the boogey-man who exiled theology away from exegesis, or is he a hero who emancipated exegesis from theological agendas? D.A. Carson's evaluation of Gabler in "New Testament Theology", DLNTD, 796-97 is quite positive and supportive. Alternatively, Guy Waters (Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, 202) is quite scathing when he writes: "J.P. Gabler had decimated systematic theology, both as an ordering principle of biblical data and as a force within the church."

I think I'll side with Carson on this one!

Interview with Alan Bandy

My thanks to Alan Bandy for honouring me with an interview at his site cafe apocalypsis. Looks like I'm in some good company in the list of interviewees. I did not ever think I'd see my name up in lights next to Andreas Köstenberger, Craig Evans, Craig Blomberg, and other such luminaries.

Francis Watson on PISTIS CHRISTOU

Francis Watson make an interesting comment about the subjective versus genitive debate (or debacle?) of pisteos Iesou Christou in Rom 3.22:

It is striking that this passage interprets Jesus' death not as the outcome of his own faithfulness but as God's saving action. While this action has its own particular time and place, it is not closed in upon itself but forms the basis of the ongoing divine action in which God justifies the one who responds in faith. Faith, and consequently righteousness, is what is intended in God's action in the death of Jesus ... If, however, God's action in Christ intends the faith that leads to justification, this faith is itself the recognition and acknowledge of the divine saving action. In a two-way movement from Christ's death and back to it again, God's saving act in Christ seeks to elicit the answering faith that acknowledges it as what it truly is. Faith, then, is "faith of Jesus Christ" in the dual sense that Jesus Christ, the embodiment of God's saving action, is as such both the origin and the object of faith. In this way, the ambiugous gentiive formulations - "through faith of Jesus Christ", "the one who is of the faith of Jesus" (vv. 22, 26) - may be clarified, not by grammar but by context.

Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2004), 75-76.

I confess that I am gradually being persuaded on the merits of the subjective genitive!

New Testament Theology: A New Proposal

At the moment I'm flat out like a lizard drinking (Australian idiom = exceptionally busy) with lecture prep, admin, teaching, and moving house. All the same, it still does not stop me from speculating about what I want to write about in the future. One thing I'm keen to do (sometime around 2011 Lord willing) is do a NT Theology before I turn 40.

There are some good NT Theologies that have just come out. I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: One Gospel, Many Witnesses and Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament : A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Add to that future volumes by Ben Witherington and Thomas Schreiner and there will be a host of NT Theologies to choose from.

My favourite volumes are the one's by G.B. Caird, G.E. Ladd, and James Dunn. I like Caird's "seminar" approach but also Dunn's emphasis on diversity.

When I finally take the plunge and engage in my own study I hope to call it: New Testament Theology: Complexity and Accordance. It will have two distinguishing features:

A. I intend to write it in sub-committee mode. So the Johannine writings form one sub-commmitte, the Jewish-Christian writings form another sub-committee, the Hellenistic Christian writings are a sub-committee, and the Pauline corpus and Pauline sympathizers are yet another sub-committee. And here is the fulcrum of the project: books can be in more than one sub-committee. For instance, the Gospel of John is simultaneously on the Johannine sub-committee (in fact it's covener), but also serves as a rep on the Jewish-Christian sub-committee.
B. The other big issue is dealing with the breadth of diversity in the NT and trying to find a sense of unity without clumsily imposing unity across the NT. I once told my supervisor Rick Strelan that I thought that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the central theme in the NT (I'd been reading Pannenberg). He responded by asking (with a smile) if Christ's resurrection was central to Philemon - I had to say that he was right. We need to think carefully about how we construe the unity of the NT. Additionally, there is no question about the diversity of voices in the NT, but is the diversity thing pushed too far at times and why does diversity always seem to connote contradiction or opposition? Can diversity be complentary? So to avoid these problems here's my angle: instead of diversity we speak of "complexity" and instead of unity we have "accordance".

Other good NT resources include the article by Grant Osborne and the list of top NT Theologies by Scot McKnight

SBL Paper Accepted II

I got word from SBL that my paper for the Historical Jesus section has been approved. The paper is entitled: Who Comes from the East and the West? Luke 13.28-29/Matt 8.11-12 and the Historical Jesus.

The paper looks at the saying from Q and, in dialogue with Dale C. Allison, argues that it does indeed refer to the eschatological salvation of the Gentiles and not simply to the regathering of the Diaspora.

Latest issue of JETS Dec 2005

Several of the more interesting JETS article include:

Grant R. Osborne, "Historical Narrative and Truth in the Bible".

David DeGraaf, "Some Doubts about Doubt: The New Testament Use of DIAKRINO"

J. Bergman Kline, "The Day of the Lord in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Scot McKnight with R. Boaz Johnson, "From Tel Aviv to Nazareth: Why Jews Become Messianic Jews".

There are some good book reviews too, memorable one's included:

Delbert Burkett, Rethinking the Gospel Sources (Michael Pahl).
James Crossley, The Date of Mark's Gospel (John P. Harrison).
L. Scott Kellum, Unity of the Farewell Discourse (Edward Klink III).
D.A. Carson, et al, Justification and Variegated Nomism 2 (A. Andrew Das).
I.H. Marshall, NT Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Robert Yarbrough).
Eckhard Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Joel F. Williams).

Jesus and Torah III - 4 Theses

As a follow up to James Crossley's Christian Origins and the Law, I have my own four point manifesto for Jesus and Torah:

1. Jesus and his followers were regarded as law-breakers by their Jewish contemporaries. That implies that Jesus did and said things that were regarded as being highly controvesial when it came to following Torah.

2. In the Gospels Jesus is depicted as both radical in setting aside elements of Torah but also conservative in intensifying some commands further. The radical sayings about the Sabbath and disregarding the duty to bury of one’s parents were not an attempt to abrogate Torah. Instead, they were issued out Jesus’ conviction that where the mission of the kingdom and Torah conflicted that Torah had to give way. The intensifications of certain commands (e.g. prohibition on divorce and antitheses) were anchored in the view that the kingdom would transform human existence to an edenic state that would render many of the Mosaic regulations as redundant. Importantly, relaxation and intensification of the law is a standard feature of Jewish renewal movements (cf. Theissen).

3. The debate about purity in Mk. 7.1-23 represents an interiorizing of purity by Jesus so that external purity is not abrogated but relativized. What Jesus opposed was the halakhah of the Pharisees and not Torah itself. Jesus refused to make distinctive approaches to food and purity the markers of covenant identity and a criterion for participation in the future kingdom. The sharing of table-fellowship with ritually impure Jews exhibited an attitude towards purity that would later eliminate a major obstace for Gentile converts (see Schuyler Brown, ‘The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission’, NovT 22 (1980),p. 196; cf. Schnabel, ‘Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles’, p. 57; Matthias Konradt, ‘Die Sendung zu Israel und zu den Völkern im Matthäusevangelium im Lichte seiner narrativen Christologie’, ZTK 101 (2004), pp. 402-3; Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, ‘E.P. Sanders’ “Common Judaism”, Jesus, and the Pharisees’, JTS 46 (1995), pp. 15-16).

4. Conflicts about Torah evolved out of Jesus’ contention that the kingdom is in some sense present and is also ready to burst upon the world and transform the structures of human existence. It is Jesus’ unique role in relation to the kingdom that propels him into intra-Jewish debates about what constitutes covenant fidelity in light of the current eschatological climate.

SBL Paper Accepted

I got word from SBL that my paper for the Synoptic Gospels section has been approved. The paper is entitled: Sectarian Gospels for Sectarian Communities? The Non-canonical Gospels and Bauckham's "Gospel for All Christians".

The paper will respond to criticism of Bauckham's GAC that comparison with non-canonical Gospels proves that the canonical Gospels were indeed written for isolated and introspective communities such as a Matthean community.

I'm looking forward to the seminary, I missed it last year, anything Mark Goodacre chairs is normally worth listening to.

New SBL Seminar

Dr. Andrei Orlov of Marquette University emailed me the following announcement:

The New Testament Mysticism Project Seminar (NTMPS) was organized under the auspices of the Society of Biblical Literature to facilitate the study of early Jewish and Christian mystical traditions in the New Testament writings. The Seminar will progress systematically through each New Testament text. 2006 SBL sessions of the NTMPS will deal with the Gospel of Matthew. The Seminar members plan to collectively write a commentary covering mysticism in the New Testament.

April DeConick and Andrei Orlov
Co-Chairs of the Seminar

New Blogs VI

Thanks to Chris Tilling for pointing out a new blog The PT Forsyth Files: Dancing in the Crisis by Jason Goroncy.

He seems to be an Aussie expat in St. Andrews with a particular love of PT Forsyth. He links to sermons by Noel Due (ex-HTC) and Nick Needham my CH HTC colleague.

Welcome Jase.

Around the blogs

Scot McKnight has some good posts at Jesus Creed on the SBC and evangelicalism as well as penal substitution.

Alan Bandy has some good posts on faith and scholarship at Cafe Apocalypsis on faith based scholarship including interviews with Craig Blomberg, Scot McKnight, and James Crossley.

Fundamentalist versus Liberal

In light of the recent posts by Ben Myers and Chris Tilling I thought I'd add my own thoughts.

Preliminary Remarks

1. Most persons who use the term "fundamentalist" pejoratively are simply ignorant of the historical circumstances surrounding the origins of fundamentalism as a theological movement in North America in the early 20th century. Many are also ill informed about the historical, theological and cultural differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism - the two cannot be equated.

2. The terms "fundamentalist" and "liberal" are often used these days as an opprobrium but they have also become relative terms, i.e. a fundamentalist is someone more conservative than me and a liberal is someone less conservative than me. (I've been called both!) To make things worse, Old Liberalism was a package and you could easily discover an Old Liberal based on certain questions, e.g. virgin birth, inerrancy, resurrection, atonement, etc. But today there are a number of theologians who don't quite fit the bill, e.g. Rowan Williams. William's has an orthodox view of the resurrection (as far as I can tell), but his views of sexuality are as liberal as Hillary Clinton speaking at an ACLU convention. In sum, other than being an insult, the terms fundamentalist and liberal don't really mean much anymore.

3. The Fundamentalis vesus Liberal controversy was really a symptom of Christianity wrestling with the challenges posed by modernity. There were two reactions to modernity: "run for the hills and hide your daughters" (Fundamentalists) or "wine me and dine me" (Liberals). As we enter into a Postmodern period the liberal versus fundametnalist controversy is no longer the defining issue for Western Christianity.

See further:
- Carl F. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947)
- George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (1980)

Why I'm not a Fundamentalist

1. Fundamentalists major on the minors, and make minor issues tests for faith and orthodoxy (e.g. alchol, Bible translations, etc).

2. Fundamentalists fail to distinguish between what is Christian and what is the cultural Christianity that they were nurtured on.

3. Fundamentalists fail to distinguishy between areas of conviction and areas of command, and treat areas of conscience as a test of orthodoxy.

4. Fundamentalists have a view of Scripture that is docetic in that Scripture is divine but it is not human - no human processes (e.g. the Synoptic problem) are compatible with divine authorship.

5. Fundamentalists preach the authority of the text but practice the authority of the community.

6. Fundamentalists fails to appreciate the different genres of the Bible or comprehend the role of presuppositions in influencing our reading of Scripture.

7. Fundamentalists believe in theological cloning rather than theological learning.

8. Fundamentalists fail to be the salt of the earth as they are concerned almost exclusively with the minutia of doctrinal purity and correctness.

9. Fundamentalists have a lopsided soteriology as they think of salvation as purely the salvation of souls for heaven rather than the liberation of persons from sin, sickness, subjugation, and death. They aim for decisions rather than making disciples.

10. Fundamentalists fail to recognize the true marks of the Church and allow for a diversity of voices within the body of Christ.

11. Fundamentalists are more excited about what they are against, than what they are for.

12. Fundamentalists regard the Spirit as a theological entity, but not as a presence that manifests itself in worship or loving community.

Why I'm Not a Liberal

1. Liberals mimic culture to the point that they simply imitate the contemporary values of the day and wrap them up in some Christian wrapping paper. The world looks on and says, "Thanks for affirming all of my values but you can keep the wrapping paper".

2. Liberals minor on the majors - sin, atonement, and resurrection.

3. Liberals have a view of Scripture that is Arrian - it is human but not divine.

4. Liberals take Scripture to be illustrative but not necessarily prescriptive and normative for faith and praxis.

5. Liberals deny the transforming power of the gospel to liberate persons from every form of sin.

6. Liberals minimize the unique revelation of God in Christ and deny the eschatological finality of Jesus Christ.

7. The Gospel of Liberalism was what Karl Rahner warned us of: A God without wrath takes men without sin to a kingdom without judgment.

8. Liberals de-historize and de-apocalypticize the message of the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles.

9. Liberals preach pluralism but do not tolerate anyone who fails to embrace their pluralistic ethos.

10. Liberals believe the Spirit is a Spirit of unity but not a Spirit of truth.

11. Liberals think that the only heresy is to believe in heresy.

12. Liberals think that the church is about programs and structures, when it is about creating gospel-proclaiming, Spirit-drive, Christ-centred, God-focused redemptive communities.

Musicals/Plays for Biblical Scholars and Theologians

1. Macbeth
2. Waiting for Godot
3. Galileo Galilei
4. Hamlet
5. Pygmalion
6. Trojan Women
7. Les Miserable
8. Oedipus Rex
9. Jesus Christ Superstar
10. Shadow Lands

Bloggers who remind me of musicals and plays:

Chris Tilling - Chess
Sean du Toit - Lion King
Justin Jenkins - Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure: The Musical
James Crossley - Enemy of the People
Joe Cathy - Annie get your Gun
Jim West - Fiddler on the Roof
Jim Davilla - Brigadoon
Mark Goodacre - The Master Builder
Cynthia Nielsen - Funny Girl
Ben Myers - A Man for All Seasons

Jesus and Torah II

E.P. Sanders and M. Davies write: "Once we can discern both favourable and unfavourable portraits of Jesus, we can ask what is common to both portraits and we may have considerable confidence that what is common is historically sound". (E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels [London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989], p. 302).

The upshot is that the invective terms used to describe Jesus by his opponents may go some way in illuminating his aims and intentions. There are several such polemical terms used to describe him including:

1. Jesus as Mamzer, or "illegitimate son"

2. Jesus as “glutton and drunkard”

3. Jesus as “demon-possessed”

4. Jesus as “blasphemer”

5. Jesus as “lawbreaker”

6. Jesus as “false prophet”

7. Jesus as “king of the Jews”

See Jerome H. Neyrey and Bruce M. Malina, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (Sonoma, CA: Polerbridge, 1988) which undertakes a study of the polemical labels used in the Gospel of Matthew.

My interest is in the designation of Jesus as law-breaker. Jesus himself provoked opposition over issues pertaining to the Sabbath (e.g. Mk. 2.24; Lk. 13.14; 14.1-6) and food laws (Mk. 7.1-23) and his fidelity to the Torah was regarded as suspect to the point that Jesus and his disciples were regarded as performing unlawful acts (Mk. 2.24; 3.4). What this label might mean for understanding the historical Jesus and the early Jesus movement is quite interesting. All the more so when it is remembered that James was martyred on the grounds of being a law-breaker (Jos. Ant. 20.200). Is there continuity between Jesus and James on this point?

For more on this topic see the forthcoming volume: Joseph B. Modica and Scot McKnight, (eds.), Who Do My Opponents Say That I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against Jesus (T& T Clark/ Continuum, forthcoming late 2007).

New Blogs V

Alan Bandy notes that his doktorvater, Andreas Koestenberger has his own blog entitled Biblical Foundations with a most on authorship of John's Gospel.

Daniel Kirk of Biblical Seminary in Philadelphia (I did like those cheese steaks came to think of it) has a blog called Sibboleth and deals with some interesting things.

Otherwise, I'm working hard on a chapter about "The Riddle of Righteousness" and trying to reach a verdict on every single disputed aspect concerning dikaiosyne in Paul's letters. Though I doubt if I will convince everybody. I hope to do some posts later on Jesus and Torah II as well as some radical thoughts on NT Theology.

Resources on Luke-Acts

For a helpful list of parrallels between Luke and Acts see the list from Charles Talbert, The Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974) with hat-tip to Michael Barger.

There is also a good lecture about Acts 17 by Bruce Winter, “Introducing the Athenians to God: Paul’s failed apologetic in Acts 17?” from the European Leadership Forum.

Unity of Luke-Acts

Luke’s agenda is not to write the story of Jesus, followed by the story of the early church … Rather, his design is to write the story of the continuation and fulfillment of God’s project – a story that embraces both the work of Jesus and of the followers of Jesus after his ascension. From start to finish, Luke–Acts brings to the fore one narrative aim, the one aim of God.

J.B. Green, The Theology of Luke (Cambridge: CUP, 1995), 47.


Other Odd Musings on Luke

Currently Luke-Acts makes up 28% of the NT (compared to Paul's 24%). In addition, consider the following:

1. Calvin thought that Luke wrote Hebrews.

2. S.G. Wilson proposed Lucan authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (Ben Witherington toys with the idea too).

Both of these ideas are speculative and I don't actually go along with them (although Luke writing the Pastorals as Paul's secretary or writing on his behalf would explain alot, cf. 2 Tim. 4.11). But what would it mean for the importance of Luke as an author if these writings were somehow related to him? Would not the significance of John and Paul be eclipsed by an author who makes up between 45-50% of the NT?

Jesus and Torah: I

Here is the beginning of a forthcoming series of posts on Jesus and Torah.

Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, ‘E.P. Sanders’ “Common Judaism”, Jesus, and the Pharisees’, JTS 46 (1995), pp. 15-16.

“Jesus’ attitude towards the Torah and the temple possesses, over against that of all other Jewish groups, unmistakable, original stamp. He thereby brings something really new, and he continues this new thing in the Church made up of his disciples. Both Jesus and the Church fall outside the framework provided by the idea – valued so highly by Sanders – of a harmonious ‘common Judaism’. After all, it is no accident that he movement initiated by Jesus opened itself step by step to an increasingly ‘law-free’ Gentile mission just a short time after his death. Nor is it an accident that the three ‘pillars’ at the Apostolic Council about eighteen years later, who were closely associated with Jesus, acknowledge uncircumcised Gentile Christians who were not under obligations to the Torah as full members of the Church, destined to experience eschatological salvation. Must that not also ultimately have something to do with Jesus’ attitude? Ex nihilio nihil fit – or, to take up the illustration which Sanders himself uses (and rejects): from our historical distance, we must conclude from the smoke that there is also a fire. The persecution of the early Palestinian Church were connected with this partially critical attitude toward Torah and cult, as well as with Christology (this whole complex cannot be torn apart.) Jesus himself provided the first impetus for persecution. Early Christianity’s relatively quick break with Sanders’ ‘common Judaism’, despite the fact that it rested entirely of Jewish roots, is a phenomenon which we believe ultimately goes back historically and theologically to Jesus’ words and deeds, in combination with his claim to have been sent from God. This development is without analogy in Palestinian Judaism.”

I anxiously await comments from James Crossley (our resident expert on Law in Early Christianity) on this topic.

Caneday on Biblical Theology

Over at Biblia Theologica Ardel Caneday has a good post on Biblical and Systematic Theology. I have my own thoughts on the subject and I stand by my early theory that the discipline of biblical theology was created by OT scholars who wanted an excuse to write about the NT.

I'm thinking about writing a follow up to Ardel's popular post 21 Theses on Paul and the Law called "5 Theses on Jesus and the Torah".

Also, I found a good link with a series of interesting quotes about house churches.

Top 10 Sermons You Never Want to Hear!

The time is 2305, I have a glass of red wine in hand, just finished reading over Jimmy Dunn's Jesus Remembered, and I'm feeling kinda cheeky. So here we go, the top ten sermons you never want to hear:


10. Any sermon with the words "Purpose Driven" in the title (no offence to RW, but it's been done unto death).

9. Roses or Pansies, what flowers should we have in Church?

8. Dancing: the devil’s tool to undermine your faith.

7. Mel Gibson, Hollywood hunk or new age anti-Christ?

6. Phil 2:5-11: Gnostic Ubermensch or Pauline Zeitgeist?

5. Ten biblical tax shelters

4. Part 12 of a 3 part series on the pre-tribulation rapture

3. Twelve steps to being a more godly pet owner.

2. Homosexuality, try it before you knock it (got this one from Episcopal Life magazine)

1. Toilet hygiene: Are you keeping the whole levitical code?



More seriously, may God bless those who faithfully preach the Word in season and out of season (2 Tim. 4.1-5)!

Seminary Students Say the Darnest Things!

During the semester I have had some really good laughs at my students expense:

1. In a lecture on the book of Hebrews and I was trying to emphasis that the author's thesis is that "Jesus is Better". A better covenant, a better high priest, a better sacrifice, a better law, etc. I then said, "Jesus is better than ... starts with M and rhymes with 'poses' any idea?"
A student with straight face said, "Melchizedek".

2. In another lecture I asked my students who was the Syrian king who had the Jerusalem temple desecrated in 167 BC. The answer is Antiochus Epiphanes IV.
One student said, "Apocrypha-Faeces".

God bless seminary students.

New Perspective III

Apparently in some circles abroad I'm getting a reputation for being a little too pro-New Perspective on Paul. Let me say a few things:

1. As one who teaches in a Reformed college I am committed to the Reformed tradition, but at the same time I refuse to anathematize Wright as proof of my Reformed orthodoxy. I rather like the guy and consider him a brother in Christ, but I don't go along with everything he says.
2. I don't consider myself a New Perspective advocate. I have criticized elements of the New Perspective in print, in lectures and on-line. But I have also been willing to affirm areas where I think that some New Perspective authors are correct or at least headed in the right direction. See here for my initial musings on the New Perspective.
3. With I. Howard Marshall I think that the New Perspective is correct in what it affirms but wrong in what it denies.
4. I am currently preparing a volume called The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective, which I hope reaches a via media on several issues of debate.

Anyway, for the sake of balance, I thought that I would list my favourite criticisms of the New Perspective:

1. D.A. Carson, Mark Seifrid, and P.T. O'Brien, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism (2 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001-4).
2. Simon Gathercole, Where is the Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002)
3. Francis Watson, "Not the New Perspective" Unpublished paper delivered to the British New Testament Conference 2001.
4. Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003)
5. Timo Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology (WUNT 2.100; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998)
6. Mark Seifrid, Christ, our Righteousness: Paul’s theology of justification (NSBT 9; Downers Grove: IVP, 2000).
7. C. Talbert, "Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionist", CBQ 63 (2001) 1-22.
8. RH Gundry, 'Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul' Biblica 66(1985), 1-38.
9. Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel (WUNT 2.202; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
10. Frank Thielman, “Paul as Jewish Christian Theologian: The Theology of Paul in the Magnum Opus of James Dunn,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 25 (1998): 381-87.

Bauckham on the "Word"

‘When John uses “Word” in the opening verses of his Prologue, he means simply this: the divine Word, which all Jews understood on the basis of Genesis to have been active in the creation of all things. Moreover, there was no question of this Word being something or someone created. As God’s own Word, it was intrinsic to God’s own unique identity. To say that all things were created by the word did not compromise the belief that God alone was the Creator of all things, since his Word belonged to his own identity. In fact, to say, as John does, that all things came into being through the Word is precisely to categorize the Word as belonging to the identity of God rather than to the creation.’

Richard Bauckham, ‘Monotheism and Christology in the Gospel of John,’ in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: 2005), 150.

New Blogs IV

I would like to notify the wider biblio-blogging community of a new blog by Christopher Petersen called Resurrection Dogmatics. The subtitle reads: This is yet another one of many "biblioblogs." Its chief emphasis will be upon nascent Christianity but will not be stymied from wading into other "waters." (the philosophical, theological, cinematical, etc) Nevertheless, topics raised by myself will principally have to do with issues related to primitive, i.e. emerging Christianity. Chris is studying at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, but hopes to study in nascent Christianity.

I am right in detecting a trend in blogs specializing in studies of certain areas of the NT and early Christianity, e.g. Alan Bandy with Cafe Apocalypsis on Revelation, and Jason Hood on Matthew, etc. Is Biblioblogging become specialized to certain corpra in the NT or will there always be the generalists about? The good thing about specialists is that they can keep us generalists up to date on scholarly debates and issues that we don't otherwise have time to track.

Welcome Chris, I look forward to your posts about "resurrection" and early Christianity.

Why write and write and write?

I was amazed, but not surprised, to learn of Ben Witherington’s publication output for this year which includes:

Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew (Smyth & Helwys)
Collection of Sermons: Incandescence. Light Shed through the Word (Eerdmans)
Christian Origins: What Have they done with Jesus? (Harper Collins)
Commentary: Socio-Rhetorical Study of 1&2 Thessalonians (Eerdmans)
Commentary: Letters and Homilies vol 1, Pastoral and Johannine Epistles (IVP

In the future BW is producing commentaries on Luke (Cambridge); Letters and Homiles vol. 2 (Hebrews, James) and vol. 3 (1-2 Peter, Jude); then Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, and a two volume NT Theology. It’s not just the volume that is daunting; everything that BW writes is worth reading.

Is all of this necessary? What about the old days when scholars would publish a few small things here and there and finally publish a huge magnum opus at the end of their careers (e.g. C.E.B. Cranfield on Romans). I think that regular and studious writing is necessary. First, University funding is largely driven by research output (those in the UK will be all too aware of the beast called the Research Assessment exercise). In the academic sphere writing is about establishing the credentials of your department. Second, and more importantly, publishing is a means of disseminating the content and significance of one’s own studies. I take every opportunity I can to teach a class, preach a sermon, write an article or book because I believe that God has gifted me as a teacher and I want to use every opportunity I have to exercise that gift. In the movie Chariots of Fire, Erid Lidell said that he competed in races because he believed that it pleased God to see him run. When I teach or write, I feel that my heavenly Father is pleased with me and that is what drives me. I’ve also received very encouraging feed back from students who have benefited from things I’ve written which has reinforced this all the more.

One of my favourite preachers, John Piper, once wrote about “redeeming time by writing truth” where he saw writing as a real and genuine ministry of truth for the Church.

I try to make the most of my time and spend every spare second I have either reading, researching or writing. I do this because I believe that what I’m writing about matters. There are some good role models out there to aspire to. In the last year my friend Scot McKnight has written several books and has a few more coming out too (esp. on Mary and a commentary on James). D.A. Carson has stuff flowing from his pen all the time. I secretly harbour an ambition to match Stanley Porter’s voluminous research output (both quality and quantity) and I consider him the bar at which to aim.

I confess that I don’t think I’m doing too badly. I’ve got eight journal articles forthcoming, two encyclopaedia entries done, three essays for edited monographs in preparation, and four books in various stages of production. But when I compare myself to someone like BW I realise that I’m not in his league. But I take solace from of all people Homer Simpson. In one episode of the Simpson’s, Homer tries his best at being an inventor and strives to match Thomas Edison in the inventor stakes. Just when Homer gets disheartened that he can’t match it with Edison, he discovers that Edison strove to match Leonardo Da Vinci. I would really like to know who BW strove to be like as a scholar, and the same goes for Stan Porter and Scot McKnight. When I discover who they tried to emulate perhaps I won't feel so bad.

Here’s a question for us to ponder. Who are the role models for young biblical scholars, both in terms of research output, scholarly ability, pedagogical technique, and pastoral care for students? Who is your role model?

Latest Currents in Biblical Research

The latest issue of CBR 4.2 (2006) includes:











Alan J. Hauser, Scot McKnight, and Jonathan Klawans
Editorial Foreword

R. D. Miller, II
Yahweh and His Clio: Critical Theory and the Historical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

Keith Bodner
Ark-Eology: Shifting Emphases in ‘Ark Narrative’ Scholarship

Mark Dubis
Research on 1 Peter: A Survey of Scholarly Literature Since 1985

Ellen Birnbaum
Two Millennia Later: General Resources and Particular Perspectives on Philo the Jew

Get Ready to Rumble: Crossley versus Bird

The current debates about secular versus faith-based scholarship provides the right climate to announce a forthcoming volume by myself and James Crossley called:

Two Views of Christian Origins:
An Evangelical and Secular Conversation

To be published by SPCK around summer 2008.

Here's the concept:

The objective of “Two Views” is to present two contrasting perspectives on the history of early Christianity. The contrast is evidently sharp as one co-author comes from a conservative Christian background (Michael Bird), whilst the other co-author (James Crossley) approaches the matter from a secular standpoint. The volume works sequentially through Christian origins and addresses various topics including the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the Apostle Paul, the Gospels, and the early church. Each author in turn examines these subjects and lays out his historical arguments concerning their origin and meaning. The volume also includes responses by two other scholars (Maurice Casey and Scot McKnight) to the arguments of Bird and Crossley as to give an even handed and broad evaluation of the arguments and debates that unfold.

Forget Neo versus Agent Smith. Forget Obi-wan versus Anacan Skywalker. Forget Manchester United versus the Dingwall Academy under 14s - this will be the mother-of-all historical debates about Christian Origins. More positively, we hope that the volume will lead to a mutual appreciation of different perspectives New Testament studies.

The outline for the volume runs:

Section One – The Historical Jesus

Crossley: What’s historical about the historical Jesus?
Bird: “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee”

Section Two – The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Bird: “He is risen!” – or is he?
Crossley: Was there really a bodily resurrection?

Section Three – The Apostle Paul

Crossley: The origins of the Pauline mission
Bird: A funny thing happened on the road to Damascus

Section Four – The Gospels

Bird: Four Gospels and one Jesus
Crossley: Four Gospels and the multiple Jesus

Section Five – The Early Church

Crossley: Causal explanations of the early Jesus movement
Bird: Fish, bread, wine and the new empire of the Son

Section Six – Responses

Bird: Response to James Crossley
Crossley: Response to Michael Bird

Scot McKnight: Response to James Crossley
Maurice Casey: Response to Michael Bird


James is a most worthy opponent so it should be a cracking good scuffle and I am sure that Maurice Casey and Scot McKnight will have some learned thoughts to contribute to the debate too.

Sample Chapters from Smyth & Helwys

The American Baptist publishers Smyth & Helwys have have several sample chapters available from their excellent commentary series in PDF. Volumes include:

Leviticus-Numbers
Deuteronomy
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
Proverbs-Ecclesiastes
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Romans
Hebrews-James
Revelation

The volume on Romans by Charles Talbert is superb and well worth looking over and purchasing.

Terence Donaldson on Matthew

Here is a few quotes from an essay on Matthean Christology by Terence L. Donaldson, ‘The Vindicated Son: A Narrative Approach to Matthean Christology,’ in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 100-21.

‘The narrative of any one of the Gospels is not merely a convenient receptacle for that Gospel’s christology, something that might be discarded once the christological contents have been extracted from it. Rather, christology is narratively constituted.’ (p. 105).

‘Matthew, therefore, presents Jesus as one who in his experience recapitulates the story of Israel. Like Israel of old, Jesus has been called by God out of Egypt to a life of humble obedience; like Israel, this calling was put to the test in the wilderness. The hope of the story is that, unlike Israel, Jesus will remain faithful where Israel was disobedient.’ (p. 116).

‘At the end of the story the tension is fully resolved. Jesus’ apparent defeat turns out to be his victory. Precisely because he followed the path of humble obedience to the end, refusing to use the power at his disposal to extricate himself from the consequences of his obedience (e.g., 26:53-54), Jesus is vindicated in resurrection and endowed with “all authority in heaven and on earth” (28:18). Sovereignty is won through suffering. It is precisely his faithfulness as the humble, obedient Son that makes possible in the divine scheme of things, his exaltation as the royal, sovereign Son. And as Son, who shares a name with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he is the teacher and baptismal means of identity for a new people drawn not only from Israel but from all nations (28:19-20). (p. 120).

NT Theology I: Religious Experience

An interesting point made by L.T. Johnson and Ben Witherington is that the centre of unifying threat of the New Testament is not any one doctrine, but rather it is a shared and common experience amongst believers. Witherington writes:

What we are dealing with here is a group of people who had had profound religious experiences that they interpreted as encounters with the living Lord – that is, with Jesus the Christ. To be sure, some of their leaders, such as Paul or the author of Hebrews or the Beloved Disciple, could match wits with many of the great minds of their age. But it was their religious experiences with Christ that they had in common. And it was their communities of worship and fellowship, which came into being because of those experiences, that provided the matrix for reflection about the meaning of the Christ event.

Ben Witherington, ‘Jesus as the Alpha and Omega of New Testament Thought,’ in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 44-45.

New Blogs III

I've update blogroll to include some interesting new blogs:

Michael Barber and Singing in the Reign who's interests are as diverse as the Psalms and the Book of Revelation - but I have lots of time for anyone associated with the Saint Paul Centere for Biblical Theology and had the pleasure of meeting Scott Hahn at IBR.

Clifford B. Kvidahl Theological Musings with some interesting info on Ben Witherington and the ESV.

Andrew Rowell and First move thyself who teaches Christian education.

Denny Burke on biblical studies, theology and politics.

My JETS article on "Incorporated Righteousness" is now available in PDF, thanks to Sean du Toit for letting me know.

Martin Hengel - Earliest Christianity

In reading Hengel's useful book (a compilation of Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity and Property and Riches in the Early Church) I made several notes of key quotes and remarks:

‘For all his tendentious distortions, Luke’s contribution to the historical understanding of Paul is essentially greater than many scholars want to suppose today. Paul’s origins in Tarsus, his link with Jerusalem, the significance of Antioch and of Barnabas for the early Paul, the sequence of Paul’s letters, the length of his stay in his missionary centres and the chronology of his activity – all these and much else would be completely or largely unknown to us without Acts’.
Martin Hengel, Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1986), 38-39.

'Luke is no less trustworthy than other historian of antiquity. People have done him a great injustice in comparing him too closely with the edifying, largely fictitious, romance-like writings in the style of the later acts of the apostles, which freely invent facts as they like and when they need them.’
Martin Hengel, Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1986), 60.

‘His account remains within the limits of what was considered reliable by the standards of antiquity. That means that the author’s assurance in Luke 1.3 is more than mere convention; it contains a real theological and historical programme, though this cannot be measured by the standards of a modern critical historian.’
Martin Hengel, Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1986), 61.

‘By depicting the Jewish Christians, including Paul, as essentially faithful to the law, Luke – against the historical situation of his time – is trying to say that the Christians are the true Israel and that the break with Judaism (i.e. with the community organized in the synagogue congregations of the Diaspora) was not caused by Christians, but by Jews (Acts 28.26ff.). The Christians had not left the synagogues of their own accord but had been driven out of them by force.’
Martin Hengel, Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1986), 63-64.

‘The favourite slogan and label “early Catholicism” is less helpful for understanding Luke; it cannot really make any contribution to a historical and theological understanding of earliest Christianity. On the contrary, it fits all too well with today’s widespread desire for handy clichés. As far as Luke is concerned, both his enthusiastic conception of the spirit and his understanding of the ministry of the church, which at least outside of Jerusalem still did not have any hierarchical structure, fail to match the label … The auctor ad Theophilum is oriented more on the past period of Christian origins than on the arrival of the second century.'
Martin Hengel, Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1986), 65.

Revelation 5 and Little Girls

My daughter Alexis has lost her first tooth and has also just finished memorizing Revelation 5 (whole chapter!). We have discussed the passage and what it means and I asked her if she understood it and she said, "Sort of" - which is probably alot closer than many learned scholars will ever be.

Read the NIV account here. Revelation 5 will probably be my text for my next Easter-time sermon.

Encountering God's Word

Down in the library I encountered a little gem of a book for undergrads called Encountering God's Word: Beginning Biblical Studies , edited by Phil Duce and Daniel Strange from IVP

· Beginning to study the Old Testament (Peter J. Williams)
· Beginning to study the New Testament (Alistair I. Wilson)
· Encountering biblical interpretation (Antony Billington)
· For the Bible tells me so? The roles of faith and evidence in believing the Bible (David Gibson)

Some of the authors will be known to others such Peter Williams of ETC and Dave Gibson of Beginning with Moses.

What was interesting was that I am just about to give a lecture on the parables and I was umming and ahhring over whether to use a Griemas diagram to outline the narrative structure of the parables. Would a structuralist approach be a bit too heavy for first year undergrads? My confidense was lifted when I realized that my predecessor (Alistair Wilson) who wrote the NT chapter recommended the griemas diagramatical approach as a way of analyzing passages in the Gospels - I then felt at ease (thanks Alistair!).

The book is a little gem for those starting serious biblical studies at either a seminary or a university. The volume is a good resource for both students and lecturers to use as an introduction to the rigours of scholarly debate and challenges to faith for biblical studies can pose.

I think I'll make my first year NT 101 class read the NT section before I set them into DeSilva's NT Intro.

The Temptations of Jesus Part II

In the temptation stories (Mark 1.12-13; Matthew 4.1-11/Luke 4.1-13) various examples and typologies emerge:

1. Jesus as the New Adam. That Jesus was with the wild beasts may recall Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and their temptation. Also, it may recall a Jewish tradition that Adam and Eve were ministered to by Angels in the garden (Adam and Eve 4.1-2; b.Sanh. 59b).
2. Jesus as Faithful Israel. The three temptations recall elements of the Exodus story: wandering in the wilderness (Exod 16:35), hunger (Exod 16:2-8), testing God (Exod 17:1-3), and idolatry (Exodus 32).
3. Jesus as Elijah-like prophet. Elijah spent 40 days on Mt. Horeb (1 Kgs 19:8).
4. Jesus as the New Moses. Jesus was “fasting” like Moses did (Exod 24:18; 34:28). Jesus' sojourn in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights again comports iwht Moses on the mountain(Deut 9:9; Exod 34:28).

One final comment, a Christian interpolation in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs captures the thrust of Mark’s temptation story: “The devil will flee from you; wild beasts will be afraid of you, and the angels will stand by you” (T.Naph. 8:4; T.Benj. 5:2; cf. T.Iss. 7.7).

To my Southern Baptist Friends

After reading the posts from Jim West and the news about Wade Burleson and the Southern Baptist IMB , I felt it time to offer an alternative opinion on the issue. But let me preface my comments:

1. I have many Southern Baptist Convention friends and know fellow bloggers such as Jim Hamilton (Antiphon) and Alan Bandy (Cafe Apocalypsis) and this is not an attack on them.

2. My first theological mentor was a Southern Baptist, who died tragically in a car accident and I remember him fondly. He gave me a great gift - a love for God's sovereignty.

3. As a Baptist, I have much more in common with SBC Baptists than many other Baptist Groups of liberal persuasion.

4. I do like to clap my hands in worship, I have been known to raise my hands in prayer, my German probably sounds more like xenolalia than German, and I do own albums by Carmen - but I'm not charismatic (either in theology or personality).

5. On whether or not Burleson broke confidentiality through his blog is another matter. It was irresponsible or careless, but not necessarily grounds for expulsion. I am more concerned with the theological issue at hand concerning the bonds of Christian fellowship, the priority of the gospel, and the importance of the kingdom.

With that in mind I would like to voice my concern over what I observe to be a slide towards sectarianism in the SBC. I get the feeling that every year that the IMB meets their agenda is to exclude and disqualify another sub-group from mission in the SBC - egalitarians and now the charismatics. There are some groups in the SBC who are more excited about excluding others than proclaiming the gospel and extending the kingdom.

Now denominations are both a blessing and a bane. On the one hand they are a testimony to the continuing division of Christians which goes against Jesus' prayer in John 17. At the same time, denominations are formed because Christians believe that truth matters and we should order our worship, our church government, and our minitry according to our biblical and theological convictions. Denominations allow us to meet with other Christians who share common convictions.

But I am alarmed at the rate that some persons within the SBC want to purge their denomination of certain groups. Here's my response:

1. I am an evangelical which means that the basis of unity is the evangel - nothing more and nothing less - not women in ministry, not views of spiritual gifts, not one's doctrine of election, and not one's political preferences. Let me say that the difference between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical is that a Fundamentalist is more excited about what he's against, whereas an Evangelical is more excited about what he's for - the gospel. So when I hear someone explain, preach, teach, pray, theologicize and practice the gospel then I know that I have found a brother or sister in Christ, and for that reason I know I will enjoy ministering beside them for the sake of Christ and his Kingdom.

2. There was a real diversity in the early church (alas, I learned long ago that not everyone was a red-head reformed Baptist), and the definition of a Christian in Rom 10,9-10 is quite broad. If you don't believe me go read Acts 6, 15 and Romans 14-15. We should expect that our churches will have a theological diversity as people arrive at theological convictions different to our own. I also believe that there are limits to the diversity that which we should tolerate so don't acuse me of being soft on doctrine.

3. Carl Henry got it right years ago when he said that Liberals minor on the majors and Fundamentalists major on the minors (re: doctrines). I think that there are 3 levels of doctrinal beliefs:

A. Essentials necessary for fellowship (e.g. Trinity, Biblical Authority, Resurrection, etc).
B. Major issues, but not necessarily divisive (e.g. church govt., baptism)
C. Adiaphora, matters of conviction (e.g. eschatology, alcohol).

I won't say that charismatic issues are insignificant - but it is clearly of second order importance in terms of faith and fellowship. In the case of Burleson we are not talking about the role of tongues in public worship - which could well be a theological distinctive for a denomination - but private prayer. If some guy wants to pray in tongues in private (like "untie-my-bowtie-who-stole-my-hondha") I don't have a problem. What a guy does on his knees at 11.00 p.m. is between him and his Lord.

4. Even worse, there is only one commandment about tongues in the NT and it is do not forbid it (1 Cor 14.39)! It sounds like Paul couldn't be an SBC missionary since he spoke in tongues (1 Cor 14.18).

5. I have a friend who is a Calvinist-Charismatic who teaches in a seminary in a predominantly Muslim country somewhere in the middle-east, and he has spoken in tongues in private prayer. I get the impression that the IMB would rather have no-one at all there training the pastors in the churches if it meant having a tongues-speaker. I retort that, the kingdom of God is bigger than the SBC. Evangelicalism is broader than the perspectivess that some in the SBC are advocating. I think everyone involved in the conflict needs to get a big dose of perspective - kingdom perspective. Let us not conspire to protect the doctrinal purity of our denomination, but let us endeavour, through toil and prayer, to extend the boundaries of the kingdom and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

6. Here is a quote from my friend Jim West about charismatics:

The claim of the Charismatics that the grace of salvation is insufficient and requires the second grace of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (as though that were an operation of God separate from salvation) is unscriptural. Indeed, it is anti-scriptural ... As I've mentioned before, I have no problem with Pentecostals. If a person wishes to be a Pentacostal or a Charismatic, they are more than free to do so. But persons who occupy Southern Baptist pulpits and lecterns and positions of authority on boards and committees should not be "Pentabaptilists". (Jim West).

I don't like the idea of a second blessing, it entails spiritual-have's and have-not's. But not all charismatics are like that - think of Wayne Grudem to name one. So in many ways Jim's remarks are unrepresentative of all charismatics and could perhaps be called a "staw man" argument (no offence Jim!). I hope Jim's fear of Pentabaptilists does not stem from a charismaphobia.

7. Let me offer up some words of warning with a paraphrase from Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the egalitarians
and I did not speak out
because I was not an egalitarian.
Then they came for the charismatics
and I did not speak out
because I was not a charismatic.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me

To be honest, I would rather work beside an Dispensational-Arminian-Egalitarian-Charismatic who loves the Lord and the Gospel than some of the doctrine-police who want to run bonafide Christians out of town over second-order theological issues. I still consider those guys who have a vendetta against charismatics as brothers in the Lord - but with brothers like them who the heck needs enemies!!!

8. To summarize, let me say this:

a. The gospel and only the gospel is basis for partnership in ministry.

b. Let us think beyond our own denominations and ask what will give the most glory to God and what will extend the kingdom of God.

c. Our greatest need is not to anathematize controversial figures (like Tom Wright) or to exclude those with different theological convictions (like egalitarians, charismatic); but our greatest need is for prayerful, spirit-led, gospel-announcing, Christ-centered, God-glorifying, justice-seeking, Bible-saturated Churches to get on with the business of the kingdom until the day when God is all in all.

And in the words of the great American philosopher, Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that".

SDG

The Temptations of Jesus - Part I

I'm just finished work on an article on the "Temptation of Jesus" and I thought I would write a few posts on the topic. I would like to preface the posts with two observations:

First, go to the website of the Christian parody band Apologetix, and listen to the song "Devil Went Down to Jordan" sung to the tune of "Devil went Down to Georgia" - it will blow your mind. You might want buy the album.

Here are the lyrics:

The devil went down to the Jordan
He was lookin' for a show to steal
He was in a bind 'cause Jesus came to find
The people willing to make it real
And he came upon the Son of Man
Saw He had no vittles and was prayin' to God
Then the devil jumped upon the chance to tempt Him
Said "Boy, let me tell ya, it's hot!"
"I guess you didn't know it but I'm a vittle craver too
"And kid I'm scared this desert air might get the best of you
"Now you ain't been eatin' your vittles boy
"But, kid, your dinner is due
"So if you're really God's son, then turn these stones
To bread and I'll butter it for you."
The Lord said, "I am hungry, but that would be a sin
"Cause it ain't by bread man's gonna be fed
"But by the Word God's given him."
John the Baptist washed the Lord and there's where it all starts
Cause Jesus left the Jordan and the devil hit Him hard
And if He wins we get to walk on Heaven's streets of gold
But if He sins, the devil gets your soul
The devil took Him up in space and said, "Christ, start to throw
"Yourself off of this temple top as I'm watchin' from below
"Cause I'm sure You know that God will bring
“All His angels to assist
“And then men would believe that You're Him
“If they saw You did something like this"
When the devil finished, Jesus said
"Well, you're temptin' God, old son
And it's written down in that book right there
That thing shouldn't ever be done”
Shout from the mountain what God's done
The devil ain't a match for the rising Son
You can never tempt God, did you not know
Man, he doesn't live by bread alone
The devil finally said, "Jesus, if You'll just worship me
Then I’ll give you gold that glitters
All these crowns, and all You see"
Jesus said, "Devil, just turn on back
Cause I'm never gonna buy your scam
I love God too much, I'm gonna resist
I'd suggest you'd better scram!"
And we say
CHORUS

You can listen to the song HERE (on the left-hand side bar).

Second, while you're listening to that consider the following: John Milton's work Paradise Regained is not set at Calvary, but in Jesus' wilderness temptations as the point where the fall and curse of Adam is undone.

Who were the Hellenistes?

Who were the Hellenists (Acts 6.1; 9.29; 11.20)?

- Gentiles Christians
- Proselytes
- Gentile Christians and Jews who did not follow law
- Diaspora Jews
- More likely is the view of John Chrysostom that it designates Jews who speak Greek as their first language.

Can early Christianity be separated into layers?

- Palestinian Jewish Christianity
- Hellenistic Jewish Christian
- Gentile Christianity

Did Hellenistic and Gentile Christianity have a syncrestic christology and liturgy borrowed from mystery cults and pagan religions - probably not!

1. Such distinctions cannot be made within Judaism (cf. Hengel: all Judaism in the second-temple period is Hellenistic Judaism).
2. Differences between Hebrews/Hellenists was linguistic, cultural and perhaps acculturation to Greek living. But these differences are not absolute and do not mean that two groups were neatly separated theologically.
3. The terminology is used loosely and people who we might call Hellenistis, like Paul, are called Hebrews, 2 Cor. 11.22; Phil. 3.5.
4. The Hellenists, like Barnabas, were equally at home in Jerusalem.

There might have been differences on views of the law and on entrance of Gentiles into the church, but we cannot be sure about radical christological differences. There was a basic unity on the content of the gospel between Greek and Aramaic speaking Jewish-Christians. In 1 Cor 15.11, Paul assumes that the Corinthians could have heard the same Gospel from Peter or James. In Gal 1.6-9, Paul argues against a different gospel, but the different gospel is different to the one that both he and the Jerusalem pillars agreed on!

“Paul assumed that the Jerusalem Christians were Christians, that there was a unity and a consistency to the gospel both they and he preached (Rom. 15:27; Gal. 2:7-10).” Craig Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1994), 174.

See further:

Craig Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1994).

Craig C. Hill, "Hellenists, Hellenistic, and Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity", in DLNTD, 462-69.

Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (London: SCM, 1983) 1-30.

I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of NT Christology (Leicester: IVP, 1977) 35-41.

Todd Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (New York: T&T Clark, 2004).

Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapdis, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 240-47.

Jeffrey Peterson, "The Extent of Christian Theological Diversity: Pauline Evidence", Restoration Quarterly 47 (2005): 1-14.

Jewish Christianity: A Definition

What exactly is Jewish Christianity? Who is a Jewish Christian? Which books in the NT can be regarded as being Jewish Christian? Should it (or they) be defined ethnically, based on praxis, or doctrinally?

James Carleton Paget is probably on the money when he (tentatively) opts for a praxis-based definition of "a Jewish Christian as someone who accepts the messianic status of Jesus (the bare minimum requires of someone wishing to be a Christian) but feels it necessary to keep, or perhaps adopt, practices associated with Judaism such as circumcision, in the case of males, the sabbath, the food laws, and other such related practices". (p.734).

Paget, J. Carleton. 2002. ‘Jewish Christianity.’ In Cambridge History of Ancient Judaism. 3 vols. Edited by W.D. Davies. Cambridge: CUP. 3:731-75.

In more recent times, some "Messianic Jews" dislike being called "Christians" since they wish to maintain that they are still Jews. Is this insistence misplaced?

Paul and the Law

Over at Biblia Theologica Ardel Caneday has posted 21 Theses on Paul and the Law which make for interesting reading!

A Citizen of Heaven and a Colonists of Jesus

In my sermon prep on Phil 3.20-21, I found useful the 10 point manifesto from Tod Bolsinger which I have reproduced below:

1. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.

2. The Gospel is a call not only to personal faith in Christ Jesus, but also to a deeply committed and shared life in community with other believers...this community being a Colony of Heaven on earth.

3. The Colony of Heaven is to be a living expression of the Word of God, particularly the Sermon on the Mount which we hold to be the "Ten Commandments" of the New Covenant, the Constitution of God's Holy Nation, according to the Gospel of Jesus.

4. The Colony is an alien community in America, a counter-culture, sojourning here as wedded to God and declaring our Independence from the ideals, ways and the value-set of the world system which surrounds us.

5. The Colony is an incendiary fellowship, kindled at the central fire of Jesus Christ, kicking out sufficient heat to warm one another and sufficient spark in the Holy Spirit to set our neighborhood ablaze in the holy Gospel.

6. The Colony is a unified family, a brotherhood of love, caring for it's own holistically, with truth, affection and discipline in the Gospel. When one suffers, we share in his pain; when another rejoices, we share in her joy.

7. The Colony is an army of love, a militia of New Creation, moving out to conquer our neighborhood with the weapons of word and deed in the Gospel, prepared to endure the sufferings and the losses which are inevitable in any war.

8. The Colony is a specialized task force, a Spiritual Marine Corps., working hard by division of labor to advance and accomplish our mission in the Gospel. Extraordinary effort and exceptional dedication are required of all, just as the Gospel demands.

9. The Colony breathes on the Gospel, but works by the Cross. Our Life is in God, but our life in this world is cruciform. We die daily and we are ready to die finally, that Life may be the issue... for "the blood of martyrs is seed," just as we see in the Gospel.
"He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

10. We believe the whole earth shall be Colonized by Jesus Christ while He remains upon His seat of authority at the Father's right hand in Heaven. "He will not suffer the reproach upon His Name that He was not able to convert the world in righteousness."

New Blogs

Ardel Caneday has a blog called Biblia Theologica. Ardel has written some good stuff on Mark, Paul, Persevarance and Open Theism. He hasn't posted for a while, but he always has something intelligent to say when he does write. It links to some of his other sites as well.

Wright's new debating technique: Violence!

Can you name a use for this cartoon featuring Tom Wright kapowing Marc Borg and Dom Crossan? Let me get the ball rolling:


1. Tom Wright's blogger Icon
2. The new cover for the Fortress edition of The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue.
3. A diagram explainig Tom Wright's rebuttal strategy for SBL in 2006.


I got the cartoon from Justin Junkins at Pisteuo.

Hmm, I wonder if I could insert a picture of Wright giving Bultmann an uppercut to the chin? Or maybe Tom slapping Richard Dawkins in the face with a big piece of Barramundi!

Interpretation: I think this drawing is a projection of someone's internalised hero myth, where a primeval (yet strangely postmodern) champion arises to fight and win the religious battle against a perceived enemy. Well, we all like to have heroes don't we!

To quote Bertolt Brect (Galileo):
"Unhappy a land with no Hero"
"Unhappy a land that needs a hero"
I think that sums it up.

Otherwise, I shall now observe a NT Wright moratorium for the next month!

Religious News Service - Kevin O'Brien

I don't normally comment on politics, accept when they overlap with religion. However, the following quote from RNS did get my attention:

I can respect the fact that an image of Muhammad -- even a favorable or neutral image -- offends Muslim sensibilities because it smacks of idolatry. It makes sense on its own level. What doesn't make sense is some Muslims' reaction. It's all out of proportion to the offense. In fact, it's crazy. The question is whether it's crazy enough to begin reawakening Americans to the threat they briefly understood after a different gaggle of insulted Muslims turned the World Trade Center and a piece of the Pentagon to rubble, killing 3,000 innocents. Which brings us to our own little dust-up over President Bush allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on overseas calls with suspected terrorist connections. The president is trying to defeat people whose zeal to obliterate your civilization has been redoubled by a newspaper cartoon. Who really scares you more?

(Kevin O'Brien is deputy editorial director for The Plain Dealer of Cleveland.)

I live next to a Muslim family here in Dingwall, who are very friendly and amiable, and I get on well with them. I imagine that they, like most Muslims living in the West or in the East, simply want to live and enjoy a happy life and feel free to practice their religion in peace with people of other religions. But how is the West to respond to Islamic extremists, institutions and governments who believe that the West must either convert to Islam or be annihilated? I'm not afraid of an American President, however inept, who can launch 1000 ICBM nuclear warheads - but I am afraid of a extremist who wants only one nuclear device! Will it come to this, who nukes who first? Let us pray that it is not!!!

SPCK Cover of Fresh Perspectives: Painting or Prediction

I wonder, is the SPCK cover to Paul: Fresh Perspectives, really Saint Paul by George de La Tour, or is it in fact a portrait of what Wright will look like in about 20 years? The similarities are striking

Forensic Justification as Legal Fiction?

Another multiple choice question. Which of the following scholars deny that justification amounts to legal fiction?

a. F.C. Baur
b. James D. G. Dunn
c. N. T. Wright
d. G. E. Ladd
e. Richard B. Hays

See the answer in the comments section.

Test your knowledge of Apocryphal Literature

Here is a multiple choice question. II Esdras refers to which document:

a. Septuagint: OT Ezra + OT Nehemiah
b. Vulgate: Nehemiah
c. Douay Bible: Nehemiah
d. Russian Bible: Paraphrase of 2 Chron 35-36 + OT Ezra + OT Nehemiah 7-8 + tale of body guards.
e. Latin Apocaypse and NRSV: 5 Ezra + 4 Ezra + 6 Ezra

See the answer in the comments section

Paul, Works and Judaism

Besides the volume by Kent Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgement According to Deeds (1999), have there been anyother recent volumes that deal with judgment, justification according to deeds? I swear I've seen one somewhere published within the last five years (after Yinger), but for the life of me I just cannot remember.

Anyone else have a better memory than mine?

Listen to the NT in Greek

Thanks to Jim Hamilton at Antiphon, I found these two sites where you can listen to the GK NT in full audio - a further way to immerse yourself in the world of the NT. I like the idea of having a sheila (i.e. female) read Romans since I would make a reasonable bet that Phoebe, as Paul's delegate , may well have read the epistle to the Roman house churches - a bit speculative, but heathily so.


Marilyn Phemister reading Westcott & Hort.

Greek and Latin Audio

1,2 Esdras Commentary

I am glad to announce a forthcoming commentary project by myself and Joel Willitts on 1,2 Esdras in the Brill LXX commentary series. Don't hold your breath, it's not due to be submitted until 2010! But the commentary is based on a single ms rather than using the LXX as a window into a Hebrew Vorlage.

New Blog: Pantodapos

A chap called Eric Sowell has a blog call Pantodapos. The subtitle reads: "Sundry thoughts, on biblical studies, theology, philosophy, greek, textual criticism, and literature. He connects to a website, Christonomy which looks like a cross between Theonomy and New Covenant Theology. I'm certainly no Theonomist, but I do like some of New Covenant Theology stuff, esp. on Baptism (not convinced that the decalogue has no abiding continuance), but NCT arguments for creedo-baptist sing and sting!

Will Jim West give me an "Amen" before Ben Myers starts yelling "Give us Barrabbas"?

Welcome aboard Eric and friends!

Books for Beginners

In a follow up to my good friend Ben Myer's Easier Things to Read before going to college or seminary, I include my own list (at least for NT studies):

Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament
Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis
William Mounce, Basics for Biblical Greek
Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Gerd Theissen & Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus
Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels
Michael Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord
I. Howard Marshall, et. al, Exploring the NT volume 2: Letters and Revelation Richard Bauckham, Theology of Revelation
G.B. Caird, New Testament Theology

Wright in Brisbane

To let any Brisbanites out there know (i.e. Ben Myers), Tom Wright will be making the trip up to the sunshine state of Queensland. I have the details from Kevin Bush:

Bishop Wright will be in Brisbane on Friday 31st March till Sunday 2nd April. He will be speaking on Jesus and Christian Mission in a Postmodern World. The final venue's have yet to be determined, but the service on Sunday will be at St John’s Cathedral.

Thus it seems that there really is intelligent life north of Hornsby :)

Thanks Kevin for letting me know.

The Problem with Pat

“I've been doing TV for years and years. And the problem is, I ad-lib.”


-- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, explaining in a Thursday (Feb. 2) interview on ABC's “Good Morning America” why he suggested the United States should assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and later implied Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for giving up the Gaza Strip. He was quoted by the Associated Press.

I could probably think of a few other problems Pat has!!!

Wright and Justification (Again)

I get the vibe that in contrast to Climax of the Covenant and What Saint Paul Reall Said? that Wright is finally getting a better balance on the forensic and covenantal aspects of justification. Consider the following statement:

"God has declared in advance that he has dealt with sin and death, and has summoned the world to the obedience of faith, with the corollary that all of those who believe find themselves declared in advance, as part of the apocalyptic unveiling of the ultimate future, to be within God's true family, whether they be Jew or Gentiles".

1. Wright here defines justification primarily in relation to sin/death, that is overturning the verdict (death) against sin through God's saving action in Christ.
2. Covenant membership, the part that Wright gets the most excited about, is here regarded as a "corollary" of justification instead of comprising its entire content.

I hope critics of Wright are paying attention!

Eating is Believing

Back to John for the moment. One of the best articles I've read on John 6:51, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", is by Dave Gibson, "Eating Is Believing? On Midrash and the Mixing of Metaphors in John 6," Themelios 27.7 (2002): 5-15. It is well written and an excellent article to give to theological students who are perplexed about John and eucharistic theology. Even better the article is available on-line at Rob Bradshaw's site right here. If I remember correctly David is doing some postgrad studies down the road at Aberdeen?

Added Blogs: KATA IWANNHN & Rabbi Saul

John Barach is (or was) Pastor of Covenant Reformed Church in Alberta Canada. He's got some interesting stuff on his blog and he has just agreed to take up a role planting a church in Medford (southern Oregon). His blog is According to John.

I've also added to my side bar Tim Gallant's site Rabbi Saul which often has some interesting discussion.

Wright on Philippians 3:20

I'm preparing a sermon on Philippians 3 and I came across this interesting quote from Tom Wright:

At once many modern Christians misunderstand what he means. We naturally suppose he means "and so we're waiting until we can go and live I heaven where we belong." But that's not what he says, and it's certainly not what he means. If someone in Philippi said, "We are citizens of Rome," they certainly wouldn't mean "so we're looking forward to going to live there." Being a colony works the other way round. The last thing the emperors wanted was a whole lot of colonists coming back to Rome. The capital was already overcrowded and underemployed. No: the task of the Roman citizen in a place like Philippi was to bring Roman culture and rule to northern Greece, to expand Roman influence there.

But supposing things got difficult for the Roman colonists in Philippi. Supposing there was a local rebellion, or an attack by the 'barbarian' tribes to the north. How would they cope? Their best hope would be that the emperor himself, who after all was called "saviour," "rescuer," would come from Rome to Philippi to change their present somewhat defenceless situation, defeat their enemies, and establish them as firmly and gloriously as Rome itself. The emperor, of course, was the ruler of the whole world, so he had the power to make all this happen under his authority.

That is the picture Paul has in mind in verses 20 and 21. The church is at present a colony of heaven, with the responsibility (as we say in the Lord's Prayer) for bringing the life and rule of heaven to bear on earth. We are not, of course, very good at doing this; we often find ourselves weak and helpless, and our physical bodies themselves are growing old and tired, decaying and ready to die. But our hope is that the true saviour, the true Lord, King Jesus himself will come from heaven and change all that. He is going to transform the entire world so that it is full of his glory, full of the life and power of heaven. And, as part of that, he is going to transform our bodies so that they are like his glorious body, the body which was itself transformed after his cruel death so that it became wonderfully alive again with a life that death and decay could never touch again.

Knowing this will enable Christians to "stand firm in the Lord" (4:1); and now we can see more clearly what that means. It doesn't just mean remaining constant in faith. It means giving allegiance to Jesus, rather than to Caesar, as the true Lord. Paul has described the church, and its Lord, in such a way that the Philippians could hardly miss the allusion to Rome and Caesar. This is the greatest challenge of the letter: that the Christians in Philippi, whether or not they were themselves Roman citizens (some probably were, many probably weren't), would think out what it means to give their primary allegiance not to Rome but to heaven, not to Caesar but to Jesus — and to trust that Jesus would in due time bring the life and rule of heaven to bear on the whole world, themselves included

Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: Philippians, 126-127.

Cited from Kata John

Current Readings: Allusion and Meaning in John 6`

At the moment I'm reading Susan Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6 (BZNW 137; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005). John 6 is a juicy little passages, one of the most controversial discourses in John, the manna, the Jewish scriptures, and esp. the "eat my flesh" thing. I've never quite been able to get into anthropophagi so I'll happily side with Zwingli on this one (did ya hear that Jim West!). I've always thought that Luther's consubstantiation sounds alot like transubstantiation by another name.

Susan (the sheila on the right) teaches NT Interpretation at Vanderbilt (so we can safely assume that she's not an evangelical). After running a marathon with the historical Jesus, going toe-to-toe in the ring for 8 rounds with Paul, and doing occasional sprint-work with the Gospel of Mark, I love to sit by the pool with John and relax. This should be a good read. Here's the blurb:

Many interpreters read John 6 as a contrast between Jesus and Judaism: Jesus repudiates Moses and manna and offers himself as an alternative. In contrast, this monograph argues that John 6 places elements of the Exodus story in a positive and constructive relationship to Jesus. This reading leads to an understanding of John as an interpreter of Exodus who, like other contemporary Jewish interpreters, sees current experiences in light of the Exodus story. This approach to John offers new possibilities for assessing the gospel's relationship to Jewish scripture, its dualism, and its metaphorical language.

F.C. Baur on Substitutionary Atonement

The idea of substitution implies two things, first, that the one who is to take the place of many others, and to be counted for them, is the same as they are; and secondly, that he possesses something which they have not; that, namely, the lack of which makes it necessary that he should represent them. If Christ has died for the sins of men, then he must have been without sin himself, in order that his death, which could not be a sacrifice on his own account, might avail as the penalty of the sins of others.

F.C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings: Two Volumes in One (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 2.155-56.

Acts 2 and Peter's Interpretation of Pentecost

In Acts 2.14-21, Peter presents an interpretation of the events at Pentecost (i.e. xenolalia). In reading over L.T. Johnson's Acts of the Apostles commentary (SP) he points out a parrallel with Plato Timaeus 72B, where it was the role of a prophet to interpret ecstatic utterances from an oracle. I looked up the reference and found it interesting.

And herein is a proof that God has given the art of divination not to the wisdom, but to the foolishness of man. No man, when in his wits, attains prophetic truth and inspiration; but when he receives the inspired word, either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep, or he is demented by some distemper or possession. And he who would understand what he remembers to have been said, whether in a dream or when he was awake, by the prophetic and inspired nature, or would determine by reason the meaning of the apparitions which he has seen, and what indications they afford to this man or that, of past, present or future good and evil, must first recover his wits. But, while he continues demented, he cannot judge of the visions which he sees or the words which he utters; the ancient saying is very true, that "only a man who has his wits can act or judge about himself and his own affairs." And for this reason it is customary to appoint interpreters to be judges of the true inspiration. Some persons call them prophets; they are quite unaware that they are only the expositors of dark sayings and visions, and are not to be called prophets at all, but only interpreters of prophecy.

In the eyes of Luke's Greco-Roman readers this may give Peter a prophetic like role and underscore his authority all the more (what I think is one of the purposes of Peter's first missionary speech in Acts). I wonder what Rick Strelan has to say about this in his book Strange Acts?

A Palindrome to Ponder

Michael Thompson had this little brain teaser for NT types over at the BSB website:

One of my students pointed me to this palindrome (it reads the same from either end) in Greek which encircles a local baptismal font (and many others in Christendom). How’s your Greek? (Hint: the second word is not found in the NT, but it does feature in the LXX):

ΝΙΨΟΝΑΝΟΜΗΜΑΤΑΜΗΜΟΝΑΝΟΨΙΝI

If you want the answer then click here.

Tom Wright to visit Australia

I've just found the brochure on NT Wright's home page, providing details of the Bishop of Durham's visit to Sydney. There are several sessions/events planned and they are organized by the Society for the Study of Early Christianity at Macquarie University. It will include a session on Paul with responses from Paul Barnett - now, that will be interesting. I would love to hear that one and see if the two can find any common ground.

For the love of Martha, will someone also try and get Tom up to Brisbane, if not for the surfing, sun, fishing, and golf then for the churches up there - the Brisbanites always seem to get overlooked as a destination for speakers as those arrogant southerns who organize the events (NSWers and VICers) find it hard to believe that there is intelligent life north of Hornsby and so fail to organize a Brisbane event in the speaker's itinerary!

The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ

I've always been a bit hesistant about jumping into the whole subject genitive reading of pistis christou - although I do think it makes good grammatical and theological sense in Eph 3.12 and Phil 3.9 at least. Despite my reservations, I have always believed that Jesus' obedience/faithfulness does have a big part in NT Theology/Christology. I thought about writing an article on the function of Jesus' faithfulness/obedience in NT theology, but I do not have to bother after coming across the following article:

Richard N.Longenecker, ‘The Foundational Conviction of New Testament Christology: The Obedience/Faithfulness/Sonship of Christ,’ in Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ, eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994) 473-88.