Wright on the Resurrection

In the Australian Newspaper HT: Denny Burke N.T. Wright makes the statement that it is not necessary to believe in the resurrection in order to be a Christian. Wright said:

I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection. But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment. Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately.

The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection. I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don’t want to say he isn’t a Christian.

I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational

What can be said here? Well, first, Wright still thinks that denying the resurrection is not a good thing - so let's give him that much. Second, Wright has some friends who are non-orthodox in their belief about what happened to Jesus and they still believe that Jesus is (somehow?) "Lord", e.g. Marcus Borg. He evidently doesn't want to call them sub-Christian and I can undestand that too. But here is where I must part company with a resounding "Nein"! Here's my take:

1. Rom. 10.9-10 is a locus classicus on what it means to be Christian. Here, Paul says (possibly echoing a baptismal formula) that: "[I]f you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved". It is not merely confession of Jesus as "Lord" but more specifically it is confession of Jesus as the "Risen Lord" that marks one out as a Christian.

2. The belief that Jesus "died and rose" was the most basic and primitive Christian confession and is found in various pre-Pauline fragments embedded in his letters, e.g. Rom 4.24-25, 2 Cor 4.14, 1 Thess 4.14.

3. The resurrection is bound up with the gospel in Rom 1.3-4, 1 Cor. 15.1-4 and see 2 Tim 2.8. No resurrection, no gospel.

4. How anyone can read 1 Corinthians 15 and think that resurrection is a dispensable (albeit very useful) theological accessory is beyond me. The issue in Corinth was not an over-realized eschatology (i.e. the resurrection had already happened), rather it was a complete abandonment of the resurrection altogether since it was thought to be inimical to the hellenistic mind and therefore not wise before the world.

I've been reading through Douglas Campbell's book, The Quest for Paul's Gospel; and while I am ambivalent towards some chapters of the book (it is written by a Kiwi afterall), Campbell nails this point well:

"In all these texts Paul basically claims that what has happened to Christ will, Christans believe, also happen to them. And these particular beliefs seem to be non-negotiable. To disagree with them elicits a stern textual admonishment, while, positively speaking, a great deal is based on them - no less than Christian salvation and hope!". (p. 183)

[In fact the entire chapter on "Faith" by Campbell is a highlight of the book].

Athanasius on the Resurrection

How could the destruction of death have been manifested at all, had not the Lord's body been raised? But if anyone finds even this insufficient, let him find proof of what has been said in present facts. Dead men cannot take effective action; their power of influence on others lasts only till the grave. Deeds and actions that energise others belong only to the living. Well, then, look at the facts in this case. The Saviour is working mightily among men, every day He is invisibly persuading numbers of people all over the world, both within and beyond the Greek-speaking world, to accept His faith and be obedient to His teaching. Can anyone, in face of this, still doubt that He has risen and lives, or rather that He is Himself the Life? Does a dead man prick the consciences of men, so that they throw all the traditions of their fathers to the winds and bow down before the teaching of Christ? If He is no longer active in the world, as He must needs be if He is dead, how is it that He makes the living to cease from their activities, the adulterer from his adultery, the murderer from murdering, the unjust from avarice, while the profane and godless man becomes religious? If He did not rise, but is still dead, how is it that He routs and persecutes and overthrows the false gods, whom unbelievers think to be alive, and the evil spirits whom they worship? For where Christ is named, idolatry is destroyed and the fraud of evil spirits is exposed; indeed, no such spirit can endure that Name, but takes to flight on sound of it. This is the work of One Who lives, not of one dead; and, more than that, it is the work of God. It would be absurd to say that the evil spirits whom He drives out and the idols which He destroys are alive, but that He Who drives out and destroys, and Whom they themselves acknowledge to be Son of God, is dead.

Women Benefactors and Church Leadership

It seems evident to me that women provided patronage and support for Jesus and his Galilean rentinue, and in the Pauline and Johannine churches too. See Luke 8.1-3 (Joanna and Susanna), Acts 12.12 (Mother of Mark), Rom 16.1-2, (Phoebe), 1 Cor 1.11 (Chloe), Col 4.15 (Nympha), Phil 4.2-3 (Euodia and Syntyche), Acts 16.14-15 (Lydia), 2 John 1-2 (chosen lady).

Where did patrons, especially female patrons, fit into the leadership structures of the early church? Did they have any role, voice, influence or determination in proceedings by virtue of their patronage? In other words, how did the cultural dynamics of patron-client relationships affect leadership structures in the early church (esp. in relation to female patrons).

The reason I ask is because we are used to talking of Elders and Deacons, but where did patrons fit in?

Rom 2:12-16 - Justification to the Doers of the Law?

Rom 2:12-16 is an interesting passage to examine. Is there an antinomy between being "justified by faith" and being "justified according to works"? There are several ways of understanding this passage:

1. Paul is simply being inconsistent and this contradicts other statements he makes
2. The passage is an interpolation in Romans
3. Paul is speaking hypothetically of what would happen if someone really did "do" the law
4. The main point is the impartiality of God and the terms are introduced merely to underscore that point
5. It refers to Gentile Christians who fulfill the law

I have my own preference (5), but I won't go into that here. What I want to do is set forth a criteria upon which one can assess the various options for understanding Rom 2.12-16 within the context of both Romans and Pauline Theology. Any solution given for must explain the following:

(1) The meaning of judgment according to works in second-temple Judaism and the degree to which it is a foil for Paul’s own views.
(2) The context of Rom 1:18-3:20 as a negative indictment of the sin of Jews and Gentiles.
(3) The emphasis upon the impartiality of God and the false presumption of Jews in their elect status in Rom 2:1-29.
(4) The outcomes espoused in Rom 2:12-16 are categories of justification and condemnation respectively.
(5) The identity of the persons described in Rom 2:1-16 (“one doing good” v. 7; “one who does good” v. 10; “doers of the law” v. 13; and “Gentiles” v. 14) and in Rom 2:25-29 (e.g. Jews, Proselytes, Pagans, Christian Gentiles).
(6) The identity of the law in Rom 2:15, 25.
(7) The relationship between faith and works as the basis of justification in Pauline theology as a whole.

Finally, I leave you with a quote from Joseph Fitzmyer:

This Pauline message of judgment is what the Christian needs to hear first, and in the light of that message the message of justification by grace through faith takes on new meaning. It is only in light of divine judgment according to human deeds that the justification of the sinner by grace through faith is rightly seen. Hence there is no real inconsistency in Paul’s teaching about justification by faith and judgment according to deeds.

Fitzmyer, Romans, 307.

Jumping on the Da Vinci band wagon

Yes, it's true. I'm jumping on the Da Vinci code band wagon. Given that the Da Vinci movie is coming out in less than a month I thought that I would do a lecture in Inverness on the subject so as to explain what the issues are and how Christians should be respond. What are these "other" Gospels? Who was Mary Magdalene? Did Constantine invent the Bible and the Divinity of Christ?


But I am definitely not going to write a book on the topic: Bart Ehrman, Ben Witherington, Darrell Bock and Peter Jones (and a host of others) have said all that needs to be said.

Must Have Primary Sources

Stern, Menahem. Editor. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974.

An exhaustive compilation of Greco-Roman authors who mention Jews.

J.B. Frey. Editor. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum. 2 vols. New York: Ktav Publishing, 1975 [1936-52].

A list of extent insciptions relating to Jews in the Mediterranean.

These are excellent, albeit underused sources, that can aid in understanding Jewish communities (and thus by implication Christian communities) in the ancient world. An obvious benefit is looking at the attitudes of Greco-Roman authors to sabbath keeping, abstaining from pork, and circumcision. The number of proselyte inscriptions in Rome women (mainly) is equally illuminating.

I would urge all students of Christian Origins to read through these two books (rare and hard to find) at least once in the course of their research.

Ben Witherington's New Book

Ben Witherington has a new book out featuring sermons of his based on 25 years of preaching. It also includes an essay on preaching by Ellsworth Kalas.

I've heard Ben Witherington preach at the Baptist Theological College in Sydney and he is quite good, he has a real pulpit presence, and he allows the text to dominate his sermon. The only thing better than hearing Ben Witherington preach is to hear him sing! He sounds like a cross between George W. Bush and Tom Jones.

New Blogs V

I thought I would mention the following blogs that I've come across and learned of in recent times:

The first is by my friend Cameron West (Brisbane, Australia) with his self-entitled blog Cam. Came is an emergent-esque Aussie who has an interest in biblical studies and is a fan of Grenz, Wright, and Vanhoozer.

The second is by Daniel Bradley (USA) who is doing an MA in Theological Studies and looks like he is getting ready for doctoral studies some time soon. The name of his blog is Kerygma. I hope from the name that doesn't mean that he's Bultmannian - that'd be a real shame!

Otherwise, in blogging news in look's like a heap of young bloggers are thinking about heading off to the American South-East to do Ph.D's, including Brandon Wason (Emory Uni, Atlanta), Cynthia Nielsen (Uni of Dallas), and Celucien Joseph (Emory, or SBTS, SEBTS). I could handle having some friends in Atlanta, I got a taste of the chicken they have there and I often sit awake at night pining for it.

Mmmmm ... chikin!

Evangelical Exegetes Hall of Fame II: Paul Barnett

Paul Barnett -
Former Lecturer at Macquarie University
Adjunct Lecturer at Moore Theological College and Regent College
Former Anglican Bishop of North Sydney
See his profile at Sydney Anglican Media

Books

[Note Paul did not publish his first book until he was over 50 years old!]

Is the New Testament History?, Hodder and Stoughton, 1986

The Message of 2 Corinthians BST, IVP, 1988

Bethlehem to Patmos, Hodder and Stoughton, 1989

Apocalypse Now and Then, Reading Revelation Today - Aquila, 1989

The Two Faces of Jesus, Hodder and Stoughton, 1990

The Servant King, Reading Mark Today - Aquila, 1991.

The Truth About Jesus Aquila, 1994

Truth and Reality: The Resurrection of Jesus (with D. Petersen and P. Jensen) Aquila, 1994.

Commentary on Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians NICNT Eerdmans, 1997.

Jesus and the Logic of History IVP (UK), 1997.

Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity 1999

Current Projects

After Jesus: The Birth of Christianity - 3 vols. planned.

J.P. Gabler on Biblical Theology

What is Biblical Theology?

"There is truly a biblical theology, of historical origin, conveying what the holy writers felt about divine matters; on the other hand there is dogmatic theology of didactic origin, teaching what each theologian philosophises rationally about divine things, according to the measure of his ability or the times, age, place, sect, school, and other similar factors. Biblical theology, as is proper to historical argument, is always in accord with itself when considered by itself - although even biblical theology when elaborated by one of the disciplines may be fashioned in one way by some and in another way by others."

How is Biblical Theology Done?

"Above all, this process is completed in two ways: the one is in the legitimate interpretation of passages pertinent to this procedure; the other is in the careful comparison of the ideas of all the sacred authors among themselves."

What Relation is Biblical Theology to Dogmatic (Systematic) Theology?

"And finally, unless we want to follow uncertain arguments, we must so build only upon these firmly established foundations of biblical theology, again taken in the stricter sense as above, a dogmatic theology adapted to our own times."

Definition of Salvation-History

When some people throw around the term "salvation-history" I often feel like quoting a line from the Princess Bride (with a Spanish accent): "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means".

Well here's a good definition from Robert W. Yarbrough:

"[We] may say at the outset that 'salvation history' denotes the personal redemptive activity of God within human history to effect his eternal saving intentions. This activity finds fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus foreshadowed in various Old Testament writings and institutions and culminating in the New Testament message of his death, resurrection, and eventual return."

"Paul and Salvation History," in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D.A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 297.

Scot McKnight on Penal Substitution

Over at Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight has a series on the atonement (a good little preview to his forthcoming book). He tackles the debates and furor surrouding penal substitution with soundess and insight. As I read him Scot is emphasizing two things: (1) An orthodox theory of the atonement is much broader than penal subtitution and we should get out of the default setting of thinking that atonement exclusively = penal substitution. (2) We should be wary of caricatures of penal substitution that do not account for the Trinitarian nature of the atonement or those that fail to demonstrate that substitution relates to representation, and that the cross relates to the resurrection and pentecost.

The posts can be read here under the headings "More Thoughts on Penal Substitution".

Since the term penal substitution are so theologically loaded, overly sermonized, miscaricatured and despised, perhaps there are other ways in which we can express the main point about the execution of God's justice against our sin in the Son (e.g. Rom 8.3). One way (which Scot intimates) is the idea of place-taking expressed best in the German word Stellvertretung.

Here we can have both inclusive and exclusive place-taking.

1. Inclusive: Jesus suffers inclusively and he takes the place of Israel and Adam as he is one of them and shares in the solidarity of their suffering, alienation and death (martyrological and representation).

2. Exclusive: As the representative of Israel and Adam, Jesus suffers exclusively as one who suffers for many, as their substitute, so that they need not suffer (substitution).

My thoughts here arise out of Peter Bolt's gem of a book The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark's Gospel, p. 70.

Why Read the Epistle of Jude?

St. Jude Thaddeus, by Georges de La Tour. c. 1615-1620

One of my other hobbies is James and Jude in early Jewish Christianity. But I confess that I've been absorbed mainly with Jesus and Paul in recent times, plus the odd exile out to Ephesus and Patmos to hang with John. So I haven't always given Jesus' two brothers the study time that they are due. But I'm planning on doing a series of chapel talks about Jude starting on Friday. Here is why I think we should read Jude:

Jude is one of the least read books of the entire New Testament. I speculate that many Christians know far better the words to the Beatles’ song "Hey Jude" than they know the message of the epistle of Jude. Well, its only one chapter, in fact a mere 25 verses, and if you happen to blink whilst flicking through the Bible you are quite likely to miss it. But what Jude lacks in length it makes up for in content. It is a powerful message for a church to cling to its precious faith, to persevere amidst a compromising age, to be inwardly renewed and outwardly effective and most of all, to glorify in God and exalt in Jesus Christ.

What does the Resurrection mean?

I have adapted a sermonette on the resurrection that I read at Ship of Fools which I think comes from Tom Wright. Anyway, I think it is a brilliant illustration that both arch-conservative and hyper-liberal interpretations of the resurrection have got it wrong. The resurrection means something much more richer and provocative. Here's my revamped version of the Ship of Fools illustration:

What does the resurrection mean? Well, on any given Easter Sunday there are usually two kinds of sermons that you can hear that try to explain the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection.

In the first kind of sermon, the Rev. Johnny Pulpit-Thumper Jr of Beechcroft Bible-Believing Baptist’s-R-Us Community Church, preaches every Easter Sunday on the reality of the resurrection of Christ. He believes earnestly in the angels who were there, the physical resurrection of Jesus, and the empty tomb. He also loves to give a good bashing to the liberal parish down the road, especially the Rev. William Humbug III who does not believe that Jesus really rose from the dead.

Rev. Pulpit-Thumper finishes his sermon as he does every Easter by quoting the hymn "You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!" The application of his sermon is also the same every year, Jesus is alive and that proves that one day we can go to heaven to be with him. We can escape this world and go to the blissful abode of heaven where they will be no sin, death or godless left-wing political parties.

Alas, the poor Rev. Pulpit-Thumper has missed the point. Much of what he says is true, but giving us assurance that when we die we will go to heaven is simply not what the Easter stories were written to convey.

As for the second kind of sermon, down the road at St. Marcion’s, Rev. William Humbug III (Ph.D, Th.D, DD, OBE and DUI) takes a last sip of Bundaburg rum and cola in the Rectory before entering the pulpit. Rev. Humbug is in his usual form this Easter. He says, “We know that the literal meaning of the resurrection stories can't be true. Modern science has proven that miracles don't happen, that dead people stay dead. Anyway, it hardly seems fair that God would raise his son only to leave millions of children around the world to languish in death.” – his God is an equal opportunity saviour. Thus: “A real physical resurrection, as believed by naïve-literal-fundamentalists-bigots is out of the question; it is an offense to our faculties of reason”.

So the stories of the appearances and the empty tomb were probably made up many years after. The learned Rector wants to make this quite clear: the Easter stories are a remythologization of the primal eschatological drama, which caught the disciples in a moment of sociomorphic, possibly even sociopathic, empathy with the apocalyptic dénouement. Well, the congregation didn't quite get that, but they don’t get very much of what Rev. Humbug says anyway.

When it comes to the "meaning" of Easter, Rev. Humbug is direct. Now that we've got away from that banal supernatural nonsense, the true meaning of "Resurrection" is clear. Resurrection is a new way of understanding the human dilemma, breaking down social barriers in society and espousing a new ethic of inclusively towards tax-collectors, prostitutes, gays, and even Manchester United supporters. Resurrection is not a heap of superstitious non-sense about dead corpses coming back to life, but a manifesto for social action to affirm the “otherness” of everybody.

Both sermons strike me as amiss. Rev. Pulpit-Thumper thinks the resurrection is just proof that we can go to heaven when we die. Meanwhile Rev. Humbug tries to make resurrection out to be a metaphor for a bunch of postmodern psycho-babble that has nothing to do with the New Testament.

Well, what is Easter really about then? I would say this: God's new creation is launched upon a surprised world, pointing ahead to the redemption and the renewal of the entire creation.

That's the point which all the Gospels actually make, in their own ways.
• Jesus is risen, therefore God's new world has begun.
• Jesus is risen, therefore, God’s verdict against us has been transposed into God’s vindication of us.
• Jesus is risen, therefore, the tyrants and despots of the world should tremble and quiver – because God has exalted Jesus and every knee will bow before him.
• Jesus is risen, therefore Israel has been restored and the plan for the nation is fulfilled in him.
• Jesus is risen, therefore, death has been defeated.
• Jesus is risen, therefore, creation groans in anticipation of its renewal.
• Jesus is risen, therefore, we will be raised also to live in God’s new world.
• Jesus is risen, therefore, go and make disciples in his name.

The resurrection means that God’s new world has broken into our own world, and we are heirs and ambassadors of that kingdom that has come and is still coming.

But that implies something else. The resurrection means that we have the task of proclaiming, embodying, and demonstrating before the world exactly what this new creation is and what it looks like.

Paul concludes 1 Corinthians 15, not by saying, "So let's celebrate the bliss of heaven that awaits us." He says, "So, my dear brothers and sisters, be strong and steadfast, always enthusiastic about the Lord's work, for you know that nothing you do for the Lord is ever useless."

In other words, resurrection means mission.

One of the creators of Apple Computers, Steve Jobs built a very successful computer company. But Jobs soon discovered that if his vision was to reach fruition they needed greater management expertise. So Jobs approached John Sculley, then President of PepsiCo. There was absolutely no reason why Sculley should leave a highly paid position in a world leading company to go work with a bunch of computer nerds in a fledgling industry. Not unsurprisingly he turned Jobs down. But Jobs wouldn't take no for an answer. He approached Sculley again. Again Sculley turned him down. In a last ditch effort Jobs passionately presented his visionary ideas to Sculley and he asked Sculley a question that forced him to accept. The question was this: "Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?"

"Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?" Indeed Jobs and Sculley did change the world.

Jesus comes to us with the same question: "Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugary water or do you want a chance to change the world?" Most of us spend our lives making sugared water, or do you want to be an ambassador of the risen Christ.

(Donald William Dotterer, Living The Easter Faith, CSS Publishing Company,
1994).

What then is Easter about? What are we celebrating? What is the significance of Jesus' resurrection? Well, it testifies to God's faithfulness to Israel, it shows that God has launched the most ambitious phase of his plan to repossess the world for himself, it means that death is not Lord but Jesus Christ is Lord, our condemnation has been changed into vindication, the new creation has begun, and we labour in the task of bringing the life of heaven to bear upon this sin cursed earth!

One final thought:

May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Heb 13.20-21.

Good Friday Thought: Penal Substitution

I spent a number of years in the Australian Defence Force and learned this illustration from an Army Chaplain.

During WWII a number of prisoners were suffering horribly from malnutrition and disease in a POW camp in the pacific. The prisoners wanted to escape, not merely for freedom from capture, but to find adequate food and respite. The punishment for trying to escape was to be mercilessly flogged in front of the whole camp.

One man tried to escape for want of food but was captured in the process. However, he was so malnourished and ill that a flogging would surely kill him. Knowing this, the chaplain of the camp made a request to the camp commandant that he be flogged in the prisoner’s place. The Japanese commandant was bemused and curious of this western altruism and so gave permission.

The POWs were assembled to the centre of the camp, two Japanese guards stripped the Chaplain, tied him to a post with his hands above his head, and then proceeded to flog him. The prisoner who originally tried to escape was made to watch. He looked on as soldiers flogged the Chaplain, they flayed his flesh without reserve or mercy, they flogged up when he screamed in pain, they flogged him when collapsed, and they flogged him even when he lost consciousness. The Chaplain’s body was bruised and blooded nearly beyond recognition. The prisoner who tried to escape could only gaze in pity and the man who had saved in his life. He returned to his barracks and that night he wrote in his diary: “In watching that poor man suffering only now to I understand what the Scripture means when it says of Christ he himself bore our sins in his body upon the tree [1 Pet 2.24].”

I find myself committed to penal substitution in light of Scripture, and I find myself moved by penal substitution in light of the grace that undergirds it.

One of my favourite verses concerning the atonement is 1 Pet 2.24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

But what is so amazing here is that the penal substitution model and the moral example theory go hand in hand together! Christ bore (anenegken, lit. carried away) our sins for the purpose that (Gk. hina) we might die to sin and live unto righteousness!

In my mind Scripture teaches the penal substitution model, moral example theory, and the cosmic victory view. Do we have any grounds to say that one story or one particular “version” of the atonement is more central than the others? Is an elevation of penal substitution over the other biblical models due to (a) misreading Paul who is more variegated on the atonement; or (b) even if penal substitution is Paul’s atonement-metaphor-of-choice, does it somehow privilege the Pauline corpus over the rest of the scriptural testimony?

I believe in and love penal substitution. I believe it is central, but whether or not it is the “centre” I leave as an open question.

My favourite writings on penal substitution include:

J.I. Packer, “What did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution”.

Simon Gathercole’s article in Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology in 2004 [I do not have the details on hand at the moment].

D.A. Carson, “Atonement in Romans 3:21-26,” in The Glory of the Atonement
Biblical, Theological & Practical Perspectives, eds. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III (IVP).

John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1986).

I. Howard Marshall, The Work of Christ (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994).

Although everyone should be getting ready for Scot McKnight’s book on the atonement which will present a rich blend biblical imagery concerning the saving significance and the saving power of Christ’s death! After seeing a sneek-peak of a draft, I anticipate that it will be challenging, edifying and controversial.

Evangelical Exegetes Hall of Fame I: Longenecker

In beginning my posts on Evangelical Exegetes Hall of Fame I need to make a few qualifications. (1) It is not meant to be a form of "hero-worship" or akin to an "exegetical idol" show. (2) The purpose is to highlight the contribution of many evangelical scholars to biblical studies and so demonstrate that faith-based scholars can make a difference.

My first pick is Richard N. Longenecker.


Richard N. Longenecker, Distinguished Professor of New Testament
B.A., M.A. Wheaton College; Ph.D. New College, University of Edinburgh;
D.D., Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.


Books by or edited by him include:

- Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period
- Paul, apostle of liberty (Twin brooks series)
- The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity
- The ministry and message of Paul (Contemporary evangelical perspectives)
- New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions
- Galatians (WBC)
- Acts (EBC)

- with M. Tenney, New Dimensions in New Testament Study
- The Challenge of Jesus' Parables (McMaster New Testament Series)
- Into God's Presence: Prayer in the New Testament (McMaster New Testament Series)
- Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament (Mcmaster New Testament Studies)
- Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul's Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry
- Contours Of Christology In The New Testament (Mcmaster New Testament Studies)
- Community Formation: In the Early Church and in the Church Today

Longenecker was also a translator for the NIV.

We can wait eagerly for his NIGTC commentary on Romans. My favourite book of his is his Galatians commentary which is my first port of call for looking up anything on Galatians.

Robert Wuthnow on Evangelicals

Over at RNS there is this quote from Robert Wuthnow on Evangelicals:

Quote of the Day: Princeton University Professor Robert Wuthnow


(RNS) “Academics often think of conservative Christians as rubes and dupes. The reality is that the real movers and shakers behind the evangelical movement are highly educated, thoughtful people with entrepreneurial skills, wealth and extraordinary management savvy.”

-- Robert Wuthnow, professor of social sciences at Princeton University, commenting on a comprehensive study by D. Michael Lindsay, a sociology department doctoral student he is advising. Lindsay's study of the evangelical elite will be completed this summer. He was quoted in the Princeton Weekly Bulletin.

Passion Week Quotes from CT

Richard A. Kauffman over at Christianity Today has a list of quotations to stir your heart and mind for Holy Week.

JESUS WENT TO JERUSALEM to announce the Good News to the people of that city. And Jesus knew that he was going to put a choice before them: Will you be my disciple, or will you be my executioner? There is no middle ground here. Jesus went to Jerusalem to put people in a situation where they had to say yes or no. That is the great drama of Jesus' passion: He had to wait upon how people were going to respond.
Henri J. M. Nouwen, "A Spirituality of Waiting," The Weavings Reader

I'D ALWAYS KNOWN, in one place in my throat, how Jesus must have cried in the garden—crying not to die, because there was no fear of death, and not to leave his friends, because he walked alone, and not to suffer, because the blood and bruises and thorns were part of his perfection—but crying because he could not find his Father's face, because when he would suffer all that he could bear, the pain of every person, living and dead, in that dark moment, there was really nobody there.
Paul Shepherd, More Like Not Running Away: A Novel

IN THE CROSS IS SALVATION, in the Cross is life, in the Cross is protection from our enemies, in the Cross is infusion of heavenly sweetness, in the Cross is strength of mind, in the Cross is joy of spirit, in the Cross is the height of virtue, in the Cross is perfection of sanctity. There is no salvation of the soul, nor hope of everlasting life, but in the Cross.
Thomas á Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

HE DIED, but he vanquished death; in himself, he put an end to what we feared; he took it upon himself, and he vanquished it; as a mighty hunter, he captured and slew the lion.

Where is death? Seek it in Christ, for it exists no longer; but it did exist, and now it is dead. O life, O death of death! Be of good heart; it will die in us also. What has taken place in our head will take place in his members; death will die in us also. But when? At the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead in which we believe and concerning which we do not doubt.
Augustine, Sermon 233

THERE IS WONDERFUL POWER in the Cross of Christ. It has power to wake the dullest conscience and melt the hardest heart, to cleanse the unclean, to reconcile him who is afar off and restore him to fellowship with God, to redeem the prisoner from his bondage and lift the pauper from the dunghill, to break down the barriers which divide [people] from one another, to transform our wayward characters into the image of Christ and finally make us fit to stand in white robes before the throne of God.
John Stott, The Preacher's Portrait

EASTER is not the celebration of a past event. The alleluia is not for what was; Easter proclaims a beginning which has already decided the remotest future. The Resurrection means that the beginning of glory has already started.
Karl Rahner, Everyday Faith


On a lesser note, I woke up this morning for my first day of Easter holidays only to discover that I have chicken pox. So this will probably be my last post for a while as I'm about to tie oven mits to my hands to prevent me from scratching the poxes forming on my back, arms, legs, arm pits, mouth, tongue, and gums! If anyone needs me I'll either be in bed reading up on Gal 2:11-14 or else walking through the streets of Dingwall yelling "unclean, unclean".

Otherwise I hope ya'll have a blessed Easter.

Christ is Risen! He is risen indeed!!

Incident at Antioch

The confrontation between Cephas (Peter) and Paul at Antioch narrated in Gal 2:11-14 is one of the most significant events in the history of the early church. It is an event that one needs to grapple with in order to understand the character and context of early Christianity. I've been studying over this passage alot recently and I've become convinced of two things:

1. The problem was not with the food in these Jew-Gentile fellowship meals (i.e. whether it was kosher or not). Although some Jews would never eat with a Gentile (e.g. Qumran, Acts 10.28; Jub 22.16) most Jews in the Diaspora did engage in some kind of interaction and association with Gentiles and without compromizing their Jewishness (e.g. Ep. Arist. 172-86; Josephus, War 2.461-63; 7.41-62; Apion 2.39). Larry Hurtado writes:

[A]lthough some Jews refused any meal with Gentiles under any circumstances, for many, probably most religious Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman period, eating ordinary meals with Gentiles was not an insuperable problem; any claims by scholars to the contrary are simply misinformed. In principle, so long as the food on the table fell within what was permitted for Jews to eat under Torah (e.g. no pork), and so long as eating did not implicate a Jew in participating in a feast in honor of a god (e.g. no libation of wine or consecration of meat to a god), there was no major problem. Second, Jewish Christians’ objections to eating with Gentile Christians in Acts (11:1-18) and Galatians (2:11-21) were not about what food was served, but about having meal fellowship with Gentiles whom they regarded as incompletely converted. This issue was not “purity laws,” but the requirements for treating Gentiles as fully converted to the God if Israel.

Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p.162, n. 18.

2. The real problem was not the food but the company it was consumed in. The objection of "those of the circumcision" and "certain men from James" was that these meals made Gentiles equals and not simply guests in the Jewish Christian community! Gentiles did not have to judaize/do works of the law/be circumcized in order to have the membership status and privileges of Jews. Circumcision of Gentiles is what links Gal 2:1-10 and the rest of Galatians with Gal 2:11-14. Paul Barnett writes:

The “truth” of the gospel was upheld when belonging to Christ was deemed sufficient for “righteousness” for God and for “inclusion” (proslempsis) in his covenant people (Rom 11:15). That “truth” was overturned, however, when the “works of the law,” including circumcision, as demanded as necessary for righteousness and inclusion. The “truth of the gospel” was under threat in Jerusalem when the “false brothers” attempted to impose circumcision on Titus, when the agitators in Galatia insisted on circumcision for Gentiles, and in Antioch-on-the-Orontes when, in effect, circumcision of Gentiels was made a condition of table fellowship with Jews.

Paul Barnett, “Galatians and Earliest Christianity,” RTR 59 (2000): 124.

Markus Barth

One author I've enjoyed in recent times is Barth, no not Karl, his son Markus.

His Bio is available at the centre of Barth Studies at Princeton. I include here a small summary:

Markus Barth (b. October 6, 1915 – d. July 1, 1994) studied Protestant theology in Bern, Basel, Berlin, and Edinburgh. From 1940 to 1953 he was pastor in Bubendorf near Basel. In 1947 he received a doctorate in New Testament from the University of Göttingen. Between 1953 and 1972 he held professorships in New Testament at theological schools in Dubuque (Iowa), Chicago, and Pittsburgh. From 1973 to 1985 he was professor of New Testament in Basel.

Since 1940, Markus Barth was married to Rose Marie Barth-Oswald (b. November 19, 1913 – d. September 2, 1993). The couple had five children: Peter, Anna, Ruth, Lukas, and Rose Marie, who all live in Europe.

Among a variety of theological interests, three issues were of special importance to Barth:

First, the understanding of the “sacraments” Baptism and Lord’s Supper, to which he devoted two major books: “Die Taufe - ein Sakrament?” (1951), which offers a close look at the New Testament texts on Baptism; and “Das Mahl des Herrn. Gemeinschaft mit Israel, mit Christus und unter den Gästen” (1987, abbreviated English version: “Rediscovering the Lord’s Supper”, 1988), which offers a study of Pauline and Johannine texts and reconsiders the meaning of the Lord’s Supper with attention to its original social and religious context.

Second, the theology of the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Epistles, which he often taught in class and which he discussed extensively in three major commentaries: Ephesians (1974), Colossians (1994), and Philemon (2000, posthumously); since he regards both Colossians and Ephesians as authentic Pauline letters, these commentaries can be read as a comprehensive presentation of his theology of Paul.

Third, the Jewish-Christian dialogue, which for him included reflection about religious as well as political matters, for example, the theological importance of Judaism for Christianity (and vice versa) or the achievements and failures of Zionism. Two of his writings on this subject are: “Israel and the Church” (1969) and “The People of God” (1983).

He also published a comprehensive study about the meaning of the Apostolate (“Der Augenzeuge”, 1945) and a brief “narration with wonder and admiration” on “Justification” (1971) as well as numerous articles in books and journals.

Significant Works

His most significant works (for me) include:

- His commentaries on Colossians and Ephesians in the Anchor Bible series. He in fact defends Pauline authorship for what it's worth.

- His volume on resurrection with Verne H. Fletcher, Acquittal by Resurrection (New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1964).

"The legal ground of justification – and the reason to praise God as the justifier of the wicked lies in Jesus Christ exclusively . . . It lies in his death and resurrection, not in his teaching, or in our obedience to it. Man’s faith has a part in that legal ground only in as much as it is faith in Jesus Christ." (p. 94)

- A little known but thought provoking article: “Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968): 241-67. Barth, yes a Barthian, launched the New Perspective years before Sanders or Dunn. Read this quote:

"A careful analysis of Galatians 2:15-21 indicates that no one can claim God's jutice for himself - God's impartial judgment through the death of Jesus Christ involves Jews and Gentiles. Justification is a social event. It ties man to man together. Justification by works would segregate men because each person selects his own arbitrary criterion of good works. Justification by grace, however, brings people together in reconciliation, even those of alien background, like the Jews and Gentiles." (p. 241)

"For Paul one's justification is closely related to the question of Jewish-Gentile unity." (p. 242)

"For the two themes, justification by faith and unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ, are for him obviously not only inseparable but in teh last analysis identical." (p. 258)

"Sharing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the means of justification: only in Christ's death and resurrection is the new man created. But this new man is not any individual, this one or that one: he is created from at least two: a Jew and a Greek, a man and a woman, a slave and a free man, etc." (p. 259).

Interesting stuff in terms of how it foreshadows guys like Sanders, Wright and Dunn.

John Armstrong on Denominations and Polemics

The maverick Reformed Baptist John Armstrong makes offers up a prayer for unity in the PCA That It Will Thrive in the Next Generation.

I know that within the reformed fold John is not everyone's cup of tea, so I don't believe everyone will concur with his remarks. Although I have many fine friends in the PCA, I'm not in the denomination and I make no pretense as to being able to evaluate the validity of his remarks. All the same, I think what he says could be applied to alot of denominations, especially the Baptist one's that I'm involved with. I have met people who honestly believe that revival will only happen when everybody to the left of them is run out of the denomination.

I have learnt that it is important to stand for the truth, for the gospel; but it is equally important to "speak the truth in love" (Eph 4.15), and to "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification" (Rom 14:19).

I'd rather be a peace-maker than a heresy-hunter; I'd rather build the kingdom than erect a doctrinal fortress.

Forthcoming volume on Paul

I've just received the word from Paternoster that my volume on Paul has been accepted for the Paternoster Biblical Monographs series. The volume is entitled:

The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective

Here is the outline (to date):

Introduction
The Riddle of "Righteousness"
"Raised for our Justification"
Incorporated Righteousness
When the Dust Finally Settles: Reaching a Post-New Perspective Perspective.
Righteousness as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Inclusion
Justification to the "Doers of the Law"?
A Bibliography of the New Perspective
Conclusion

Insomnia, Church History, and Star Wars

I suffer from chronic insomnia, so I make the best of it by writing and reading from 9.00 p.m. - midnite most nights. Last night, however, I still couldn't get to sleep until 1.00 a.m. because I could not help but think of moments in Church History that could be adequately summarized by quotations from Star Wars. Either I have an unhealthy fixation on Star Wars for a man in his early 30s, or else I need to start taking some sleeping pills. Anyway, this is what went through my mind:

Justin Martyr to his disciple Tatian: "You were the chosen one Anacan, you were supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them". [Incidentally, these are words that I shall repeat to Ben Myers if he ever turns into a Liberal!]

Marcion to the Bishop of Rome: "I've become more powerful than any Jedi!"

Paul to the Emperor Nero: "Strike me down Vader and you'll only make me twice as powerful".

Ignatius of Antioch writing letters to his chruches: "I am a jedi, as my father before me".

Author of the Gospel of Thomas explaining his literary work to his friends: "You must free yourself from the narrow and dogmatic view of the Jedi and embrace a more comprehensive understanding of the force".

What Cerinthius would say to Irenaeus: "Only a Sith Lord believes in absolutes".

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.