Jesus the Messiah II

Let me count down the reasons why I think that the historical Jesus made a messianic claim. I'm dealing with the arguments in order of least compelling to most compelling. So the first arguments are the least effective one's and the most forceful are at the end.

1. Allusions to David and Solomon.
The references to "greater than Solomon" (Q 11.31) and David (e.g. Mk. 2.25; 12.35-37) could imply that Jesus also saw himself in a "kingly" fashion, but it is far from certain based on these passages. The fact that Jesus performed exorcisms may also contains an implicit messianic connotation since there was an extant tradition of Solomon as an exorcist (Test. Sol. 1.5-7). In fact, a similar link of kingship and exorcisms is made in 4Q510 1.1-4. Of course greater than Solomon or references to David might imply no more than a reference to Jesus as a sage or prophet or simply "someone important" rather than setting forth a clear messianic claim.

2. The Son of David as the "Lord" in Mark 12.35-37·
This enigmatic unit questions how the Messiah can also be David's Lord. Does this show that the Messiah is more than a Son of David (i.e. heavenly or pre-existent) or does it show that Jesus tries to differentiate his davidic identity from regular messianic connotations? On authenticity some might cry: "Ha, ha, ha, it quotes Ps 110, there favourite apologetic proof text of early Christians, therefore, this story is a secondary accretion to the tradition!" A pox on thee. William Horbury has shown (Messianism among Jews and Christians, 137-42) that Jewish messianic exegesis already combined Daniel 7 with Ps. 110. While I think it hints towards a view of Jesus as more-than-just-a-messiah, it is hardly perspicuous.

3. The Christos and the Christianoi.
How does one launch a messianic movement with a messianic name centred on a figure whose second name is Messiah (Christ) - all without a Messianic claimant at the middle? I don't go for Wrede's Resurrection = Messiah and so the origin and maintenance of the messianic dimension to early Christianity needs explanation. In fact, I would say that the messianism of the early Christians was very early and very robust. Proclaiming a crucified Messiah was not going to endear you to any Jewish audience and yet the claim persisted, it was not peripheral to their proclamation and worship but central. The title Christianoi/Christiani was probably coined by Roman authorities in Antioch (Acts 11.26) given the latin designation. Notably the name Iousiani or "Jesuians" was never used.

4. Trial
Arguably Jesus was asked at his trial if he was the Christ/Son of God (Mark 14.61-64; 15.1-2). Whatever su legeis means ("you said it dude"?) in Mk. 15.2, it contributed to his death. Even if all that Jesus did was not deny the title rather than actually claim it, that would be of itself quite significant (as Dodd noted). The problem is that the trial narratives in the Gospels are historically suspect since they happened behind closed doors and they are theologically loaded. I would argue that there was probably piecemeal eyewitness testimony available to the trial from figures such as Joseph of Arimathean, Nicodemus and perhaps even the Beloved Disciple. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and pilgrims in the city for Passover would have wanted to know how did Jesus go from glorious entry to ignomious death in seven days and reports of what transpired would have got out somehow.

5. I have come sayings
Several of the "I have come" statements seem to suppose a messianic function. For instance, “I have come to cast fire” (which Grimm, Weil ich dich liebe, 85-86 accepts as messianic in orientation). See on this more recently, Simon Gathercole, The Pre-Existent Son, who admits a messianic/prophetic meaning to many of these sayings but thinks that they also include indications of pre-existence (and see the RBL review by Jimmy Dunn for a counter-point).

6. Kingdom of God presupposes a King
According to E.P. Sanders, the very fact that Jesus proclaimed a kingdom implies that he would have some role in that kingdom. Sanders goes on to say that Jesus saw himself as "God's vice-regent". On the surface I can agree with this, but again, there is some doubt. John the Baptist proclaimed the kingdom too and he did not necessarily see himself as ruling or reigning in that kingdom. The term "vice regent" might be a convenient way to avoid saying "Messiah" when the two terms might be synonymous. Or then again, do all ruling functions necessitate a messianic status or claim? But I would say the mystery of the kingdom is enthronement of the Messiah and how that will come about (see John Meier and Ben F. Meyer).

7. Shepherd Theme.
According to Ezekiel 34 the coming Davidic king would be a Shepherd King. I think it possible to say that this theme lies behind Mk. 14.27 ("I will strike the Shepherd"), Lk. 19.10 ("I came to seek and save the lost"), John 10 ("I am the Good Shepherd"), and Mt. 18.12ff/Lk. 15.4ff ("if you have a hundred sheep"). Jesus appears to have made this davidic shepherd theme paradigmatic for his teaching ministry and it explains why he focused on certain audiences such as the "people of the land".

8. Triumphal Entry + Cleaning/Demonstration in the Temple.
Jesus' entry into Jerusalem seems to echo Judas Maccabees entry and his cleansing/demonstration in the temple was messianic in the sense that the Messiah was cleanser and/or rebuilder of the temple. In fact, Herod's rebuilding of the temple was probably part of his propaganda to set forth a claim to the Jewish throne since he was an Idumean (see William Horbury on Herod's messianism). Significantly, I think it is the entry and cleansing together that constitute a prophetic-come-messianic act.

9. Titulus
All four Gospels indicate that Jesus crucified under the titulus "King of the Jews". Placards of this sought were common in Roman executions and it fits with the public warning that crucifixion was meant to make. The titulus also gave Pilate a chance to thumb his nose at Jewish pretentions to self-rule. You could also argue that it was potentially embarassing to later Christians group, although the fact that it occurs in all four Gospels might suggest that it was in fact a means to an ironic Christology and solicited the Romans, unknowingly, to be witnesses of Jesus as the Jewish King. In fact, this ironic Christology is quite apparent in John and Mark. But still, the titulus tells us something of both Jesus' trial, its outcome, and the way he was perceived by the Judean leadership and the Roman political apparatus.

10. Mark and Q
Ed Meadors argued that Q and Mark both picture Jesus as the "messianic herald of salvation" and that would give us multiple-attestation for a messianic theme dominating the christological contours of two sources. Q sceptics and those who break up Q into different tiers will no doubt scoff, but I think this is a genuinely persuasive argument.

11. Jesus and Isaiah 61.
Jesus' use of Isaiah 61 in Lk. 4.18-21 and Q 7.22 as it relates to 4Q521 is a petty good indication that his ministry was both intended and was perceived to have a messianic character.

12. The Messianic Connotations of the Son of Man.

Anything and everything about the Son of Man is contested. But I submit (on the back of U. Muller, C. Carougnis, S. Kim and others) than the Son of Man is essentially a messianic figure of some variety, and if this was Jesus' primary means of self-reference, it constitutes a fairly clear messianic claim given his actions and proclamation.

And that is a summary of what I hope to argue later in the year.

Saving Righteousness of God on Amazon.com

For those who want a copy of my book on the New Perspective on Paul called The Saving Righteousness of God (subtitled: "Ten Reasons why Tom Wright is not the Anti-Christ, just a very naughty boy") see the side bar as it is now available on Amazon.com and also from Wipf & Stock publishers.

Conversation on the NPP

Thanks to Mark Mattison for telling me about An Evening Conversation on Jesus and Paul with James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright based on a dialogue between the two at the Durham Uni seminar back in 2004.

On a related topic, the PCA on-line magazine "Faith on-line" has published the PCA report of the
Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies. The pro and con of this document is . . . well, actually, I just can't be bothered anymore. Go read it yourself.

A Letter from Smyrna

Over at Evangelical Textual Criticism Peter Head has posted A letter to the Global Church from The Protestant Church of Smyrna which is a must read. It is also a call to prayer and a time for reflection on the meaning of the cross for our day.

F.F. Bruce on John 3.16

'For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life'

- John 3:16 (NET).

‘If there is one sentence more than another which sums up the message of the Fourth Gospel, it is this. The love of God is limitless; it embraces all mankind. No sacrifice was too great to bring its unmeasured intensity home to men and women: the best that God had to give, he gave – his only Son, well-beloved’.

F.F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 89-90.

Penal Substitution and Propitiation

I wonders if part of the current debate (see my earlier post Wright on Penal Substitution) is because there is a failure to distinguish between "penal substitution" and "propitiation". They are related but they are not the same thing. What is more, how is God's wrath to be understood?

We can define Penal Substitution (PS) as the view that God punishes Jesus for our sins by putting him in our place on the cross. No definition of PS that I know of (e.g. Robert Latham, Leon Morris, or John Stott) mentions wrath as far as I can remember. PS means that God prosecutes his contention against our sin by handing over Jesus to the cross to die in our stead. I think PS is taught in Rom. 8.1-3 and implied in Rom. 3.25, 1 Cor. 5.7, Gal. 3.13 and 1 Tim. 2.6. If Dan Wallace is right (GGBB, 383-89) then there may be some grounds for seeing a semantic overlap between the prepositions hyper "for" and anti "in place of", e.g. "Jesus died hyper [for/in place of] us" or in order to deal with our sins. But it is one thing to say that Jesus satisfied the justice of God, and it is another thing to say that he satisfies the wrath of God - they are not the same. I would also concur with St. Leon of Morris that hilasterion means "propitiation". The meaning is that Jesus' death appeases and satisfies God's wrath. What is more, in Romans the verdict of condemnation against human wickedness occassioned by God's wrath in 1.18-32 is identical to the verdict executed in Christ's death in Rom. 3.21-26 - so there is a connection between atonement, justice, and wrath. But how? Well, when that verdict is executed then God's wrath is propitiated.

What is God's wrath for that matter? I don't think it is the inevitable and impersonal exercise of God's justice in a moral universe (C.H. Dodd) nor can it be described as God's action as a "vengeful Father" (I think that is what Stephen Chalke is objecting too). The best definition of wrath is that it is the response of God's holiness towards evil, it is the display of God's righteous indignation towards human depravity (F.F. Bruce, Romans). It is neither impersonal nor spiteful. About a year ago I read a horrid story of a 4 year old girl who was beaten to death by her mother's boyfriend and the couple put her body in a suitcase through it in the River Ness. When I read that story I felt wrath, a righteous anger. It wasn't spiteful, it was not disproportionate, but my anger against such an horrendous crime was appropriate to me as a Father and and a law-abiding citizen - that action demanded punishment and I wanted to see that punishment meted out fully and finally. On the cross, God does not extract "revenge" against the Jesus, rather he executes his wrath (righteous indignation) against sin in the body of the sinless Son.

For those in want of further eading, let me recommend the following:

Carson, D.A. ‘Atonement in Romans 3:21-26.’ In The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological, and Practical Perspectives, eds. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 119-39.

Gathercole, Simon. ‘The Cross and Substitutionary Atonement.’ SBET 21 (2003): 152-63.

McGowan, A.T.B. ‘The Atonement as Penal Substitution.’ In Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A.T.B. McGowan (Leicester, England: IVP, 2006), 183-210.

McKnight, Scot. A Community Called Atonement (Nashville: Abingdon, forthcoming 2007).

Paul and Perseverance

Today in my Pauline Theology class we had a lecture on Paul and Perseverance. I opened the lecture with a discussion about whether or not the bumper-sticker-theology phrase "once saved, always saved" is an appropriate representation of Paul's conception of perseverance. Views were expectedly diverse on the topic but mostly in favour of it. I set out to show that things are a little more complex than that. We then worked through the Pauline materials and had a bit of an intro to the view of Judith Gundry-Volf. After that I then asked the students to come up with a new bumper-sticker-theology phrase that more adequately describes Paul's perspective on perseverance while I went and made myself a drink. When I came back they had come up with this phrase:

Salvation! Work out what God has worked in!

Well done to Paul, Ian, Anne, George, and Dan.

Jesus the Messiah - I

At the end of the year I am hoping to finish writing an article on the historical Jesus and the question of whether or not he made a messianic claim. Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah? Scholarship is mooted at this point. Indeed, a non-messianic Jesus is deeply ingrained in certain elements of scholarship. The main views seem to be:

• Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah and the Church proclaimed Jesus as Messiah as an inference based on his resurrection.
• The disciples proclaimed Jesus as Messiah during his life but Jesus rejected the title.
• Jesus did not claim the title, but neither did he reject it.
• Jesus claimed to be the Messiah

In a future post I hope to offer one or two or thirteen reasons why I think he did claim to be enacting a messianic role.

Wright on Penal Substitution

Alot is going on around the web about penal substitution esp. in relation to the views of Stephen Chalke, N.T. Wright, and a recent book edited by Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffery, and Andrew Sach (eds.) Pierced for our Transgressions (IVP). Jim Hamilton and Denny Burke add their comments. N.T. Wright responds to his critics on the Fulcrum website.

Here is a quote from NTW himself:

"No clearer statement is found in Paul, or indeed anywhere else in all early Christian literature, of the early Christian belief that what happened on the cross was the judicial punishment of sin. Taken in conjunction with 8:1 and the whole argument of the passage, not to mention the partial parallels in 2 Cor 5:21 and Gal 3:13, it is clear that Paul intends to say that in Jesus’ death the damnation that sin deserved was meted out fully and finally, so that sinners over whose heads that condemnation had hung might be liberated from this threat once and for all."

Wright, ‘Romans,’ 10.574-75

Bywater on VanLandingham

Kevin Bywater (Ph.D cand. at Durham Uni) begins his review/evaluation of Chris VanLandingham's book on judgment and justification in Judaism and Paul. See his blog Living Waters.

Jensen on being "Reformed"

Peter Jensen, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, has a lecture on Why I am a Reformed Christian. Please listen to it if you are so inclined.

Paul and Gender II

William Mounce (Pastoral Epistles, 103) approvingly cites this quotation from David M. Scholer:

"The concept of genuinely objective biblical interpretation is a myth. All interpretation is socially located, individually skewed, and ecclesiastically and theologically conditioned ... All biblical interpreters, regardless of where they now stand on the issue of women in ministry, have been deeply influenced by both the sexism and misogyny of our culture and also the currents of nineteenth-century women's rights and twentieth-century feminist movements."

In other words, the door of biases swings both ways.

Paul Winter and the Son of Man

Paul Winter: ‘the place of origin of the Son of Man myth must be sought neither in Iran, nor in Judea, not even in Ugarit, but in German universities’.

Cited in Simon Gathercole, The Pre-Existent Son, 255.

A Definition of Mission

Later in the year I'm returing to the topic of mission or proselytism in the ancient world. I think that alot of the arguments about whether or not second-temple Judaism was a missionary religion or not comes down to a matter of the definition of mission and the differences between conversion and adherence - balancing sociological and theological factors also contributes to the definition. For example James C. Paget defines a missionary religion as ‘one which, in a variety of ways, makes it clear that conversion to that religion is a good thing’. Based on his work on mission-commitment in Judaism, John Dickson defines mission as ‘the range of activities by which members of a religious community desirous of the conversion of outsiders seek to promote their religion to non-adherents’. Martin Goodman identifies different types of missionary activity including: information, education, apologetic and proselytization. For him the latter consists of: 'Those who approved of proselytizing mission believed that, as members of a defined group, they should approve of those within their number who might choose to encourage outsiders not only to change their way of life but also to be incorporated within their group'. What started me thinking on this subject was Scot McKnight's much under read book Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (1991) which is well worth checking out.

Paul and Gender

I'm currently writing a chapter for my new Paul book and the chapter is called: Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts. It is honestly one of the hardest things I've ever written on (Jesus and the Law is # 2) and I am continuing to plow throw it with great caution and care. But I very much liked this quote from Judith Gundry-Volf:

"In sum, Paul seems to affirm both equality of status and roles of women and men in Christ and women’s subordinate or secondary place. He appears to think that sometimes the difference between male and female is to be expressed in patriarchal conventions and that sometimes these conventions should be transcended or laid aside."

Judith Gundry-Volf, ‘Paul on Women and Gender: A Comparison of Early Jewish Views,’ in The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on his Life, Thought, and Ministry, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 186.

Paul and Scripture Seminar

The website for the Paul and Scripture Seminar (SBL) is hosted by Bruce Frisk. The papers from the 2006 Washington meeting include the following:

Bruce N. Fisk, Westmont College

Synagogue Influence on Paul's Roman Readers

Stephen Moyise, University of Chichester UK
How does Paul Read Scripture?

Stanley E. Porter, McMaster Divinity College CA
Paul and his Bible: His Education and Access to the Scriptures of Israel

Christopher D. Stanley, St. Bonaventure University
The Role of the Audience in the Interpretation of Paul's References to the Jewish Scriptures

Diana M. Swancutt, Yale Divinity School
Scripture 'Reading' and Identity Formation in Paul: Paideia Among Believing Greeks

For those who do not know, Paul and Scripture is a battlefield between guys like Richard Hays one the one hand who think that Paul quotes Scripture with the literary context in mind and on other hand the likes of Chris Stanley who think that the context was not important and not evident to his readers (to put it simply).

Preachings on Romans 14.1-15.7

Over the next couple of weeks in my church, Dingwall Baptist Church, I am preaching through Romans 14.1-15.7 and two major verses stick out in my mind:

Romans 14:19 - So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

[Those who have read my Saving Righteousness book will now how much I love that verse]

Romans 15:7 - Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

I think these two verses some up much of the exhortation in 14.1-15.7 and I wish all churches had them written somewhere in the auditorium or etched on the desk of all committee meetings.

Trying to teach about the "weak" and "strong" is a bit daunting also, both at a scholarly and popular level. Were the weak Jews, Jewish Christians or Gentiles?

Horace (Sat. 1.9.68-72) includes a story where one person refuses to speak to another person and the approached person says:

"Today is the thirtieth sabbath. Would you affront the circumcised Jews?"
The other replies, "I have no scruples".
Then he retorts, "But I have. I am a somewhat weaker brother, one of the many. I will talk another day."
(See commentaries by Ben Witherington and Charles Talbert).

The Pre-Christian Michael Bird

I know that given recent events in America this is probably not the best time to post this, but to give my friends in the blogosphere a laugh I thought I would upload this photo of me from my Army days, just to show that I was not always a NT Geek. For the record, I believe in stringent gun control laws. When I first joined the Army I weighed a remarkable 45 kg and moved up to 65 kg in about two months. It was actually during my time in the Army that I became a Christian and being a Christian in the Army was not always easy! The Army philosophy is what I call Cartesian Alcoholism: "I drink, therefore, I am!" But I developed skills (public speaking, discipline, and confidence) that prepared me for an academic career and I learnt very quickly to be able to provide an answer for the hope that you have (1 Pet. 3.15). My time in the Army (13 years all up) shaped a lot of my character and taught me how to cope with adversity, so in that sense, I am grateful for it. From now I am only a soldier of Christ and I carry a NA27 instead of an M-60 - Amen!

Zahn on the Pastoral Epistles

It is a good exercise to ocassionally read older NT Introductons when you get a chance and it makes you realize that very little is actually new these days. I have been flicking through Theodor Zahn's NT Intro and here is what he had to say about the Pastoral Epistles:

With regard to that last refuge of so-called criticism, namely, the linguistic character of the letters, it is to be remarked at the outset that a pseudo-Paul, by repeating and imitating Pauline expressions, would be sure to make mistakes and so betray himself. The opposite is what we really find. Even the greetings, which would be the most apt to be handled in this way, are thoroughly originaly, hwoing dependence neitehr upon earlier letters nor upon teh common model. Here also is to be observed the peculiarity of Paul's style, by which he repeats within short range a characteristic word once used or a realted word, without prejudice to the fact that for one not a Greek he has command of an unusually larger number of words and expressions, which would tend rater to increase with time than to diminish. Itis also to be observed that 1 Tim. and Titus were written withint a short time of each otehr and for like reasons, and that of 2 Tim. also is considerably close to thtese letters both in time and purpose than it is to any of the Epistles that we have investigated. Consequently the fact that these three letters have certain expressions in common which either are found not in the earlier Pauline Epistles at all, or occur only rarely, is no proof that they are spurious, but only goes to confirm the conclusion arrived at from the investigation of their contens, that they all belong to the same period of Paul's life, and that the last. If it be admitted tha the linguistic phenomena of the letters controvert altogether the efforts of numerous "apologists" to find a palce for 1 Tim. and Titus in the earlier period of Paul's life, then the "critics" in their turn ought not to deny that 2 Tim. is different from the other two not only in content, but also linguistically. Such difference is very difficult to understand if all three are the work of a forger, but very easy to explain if they wre written by Paul under the conditions which the letters themselves disclose.

T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (ed. M.W. Jacobus; 3 vols; 3rd edn; Minneapolis: Kock and Klock/Kregal, 1953), 2.121-22.

David deSilva on Revelation

For those interested in studies on the book of Revelation, the following volumes by David deSilva will be available soon:

Seeing the World Through John’s Eyes: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louisville, KY:Westminster John Knox Press, 2006 [or 2007 ?]).

A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008).

The Legacy of Paul

Next to Jesus Paul has been the most influential figure in the history of Christianity. Although all the NT writers are working out the implications of Jesus for particular communities of believers, Paul in his numerous letters does this on the widest scale of all. That range, plus the depth of this thought and the passion of his involvement, have meant that since his letters became part of the NT, no Christian has been unaffected by what he has written. Whether or not they know Paul's words well, through what they have been taught about doctrine and piety, all Christians have become Paul's children in the faith.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 422.

One might write a history of dogma as a history of the Pauline reactions in the church, and in doing so would touch on all the turning points of the history. Marcion after the Apostolic Fathers; Irenaeus, Clement and Origen after the Apologists; Augustine after the Fathers of the Greek Church; the great Reformers of the Middle Ages from Agobard to Wessel in the bosom of the medieval Church; Luther after the Scholastics; Jansenism after the Council of Trent; everywhere it has been Paul, in these men, who produced the Reformation. Paulinism has proved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never been.

Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma (trans. Neil Buchanan; Boston: Little, Brown, 1901), 1.136.

Unity of Luke-Acts and a New Blog

The latest issue of CBR is out and features the following article:

Patrick E. Spencer
The Unity of Luke—Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge
Currents in Biblical Research 2007 5: 341-366.

Nearly every scholarly investigation of Luke—acts today must address the question of unity. it is a hermeneutical hinge and the answer to the question has wide-ranging interpretive implications. the call to dissolve the unity of Luke and acts—and the `hyphen' cadbury inserted—focuses on four `bolts': (1) genre, (2) narrative, (3) theology, and (4) reception history. Despite far-reaching argument over the past twenty years favoring removal of the four `bolts', the hinge remains securely fastened. In addition, there is significant coalescence around certain issues such as the presence of an intermixing of genre types in acts and an intertwining of the narrative and theological themes in Luke and acts. and questions about unity have led to new avenues of exploration and the identification of trajectories that crisscross both volumes and tie them together.

For an analogous set of essays see the forthcoming issue of JSNT in July 2007.

Patrick Spencer also has a blog called: Gospels, Acts, and Hermeneutics.

Chrysostom on Col. 2.15

In a remarkable text from Colossians, Paul can say that God having ‘Disarmed the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross’ (Col. 2.15). What appeared to the spiritual rulers and principalities as God’s apparent defeat on the cross was in fact the occasion for his greatest triumph. John Chrysostom commented on this passage: ‘Never yet was the devil in so shameful a plight. For while expecting to have him, he lost even those he had; and when Christ’s body was nailed to the cross, the dead arose. At the cross death received his wound, having met his death stroke from a dead body. And as an athlete, when he thinks he has hit his adversary, himself is caught in a fatal grasp, so truly does Christ also show, that to die with arrogance is the devil’s shame’.

Peter Gorday (ed.), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon (ACC 9; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 35

The Lion and the Lamb

Last sunday morning I preached on Revelation 5. I set out trying to explain and exposit the meaning of vv. 5-6 "Behold, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah ... I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain".

During my sermon I said: "Behold the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, with the head of a Lion, the body of a Lamb, and the head of Lamb" [those who know their American sitcoms will recognize the Simpson's intertexture, an area of textual discourse as yet uncharted by V.K. Robbins and friends]. My own thinking is that the function of such imagery is rhetorically apologetic and simultaneously ironic. That is, John the Seer argues that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah/Root of David (i.e. the Messiah) is also the Lamb who was slain (i.e. the crucified Jesus). In other words, the crucified Jesus is Israel's Messiah! The messiahship of Jesus (as a crucified messiah) was a point of contention in Jewish - Christian relations and I would be prepared to argue that Mark's Gospel in particular is an apology for the cross (see also Robert H. Gundry, Craig A. Evans and S.G.F. Brandon). I think Rev. 5.5-6 is advocating a similar picture here.

50 Free Books on-line

In my internet searches I have come across a site that lists 50 free books relating to biblical and theological studies. See religion online. Authors are as diverse as Susan Garett, Jimmy Carter, Marcus Borg, and Walter Wink.

Top 50 Blogs

According to the blog ratings Euangelion ranks at # 4 - hooray! The fact that Chris Tilling is at # 2 leads me to think that the whole thing is rigged! Alas, Mark Goodacre, the guru-swami-ninja-Jedi-blogmaster that he is remains in a league of his own.

Underrated NT Scholars of the 20th Century

I have put together the list of who I think are the most underrated and under read scholars of the twentieth century. No doubt the list could have included others and some will question my nominations. I have divided up the list geographically and I apologize that the list of Euro-Americano centric but this is where my experience of reading comes from.

Continental Europe

Theodore Zahn
Adolf Schlatter
N.A. Dahl

Britain

E. Hoskyns
G.B. Caird
Charles Moule

USA

Henry Cadbury
John Knox
Charles Talbert

Congrats to Joel and Karla Willitts

Joel Willitts and his wife Karla had twins yesterday! Zion, the little boy, weighed in at 3.4 pounds and his sister, born one minute later, Mary, weighed in at 2.4 pounds. Photos of the bubbies can be seen over at Jesus Creed. They are both ADDG - absolutely drop dead gorgeous!

It was a tough road for Joel and Karla and the pregnancy has been especially hard on Karla so keep them in your prayers, esp. a good recovery for Karla!

So big congrats to the new parents! May your nights be sleepless and your days filled with gooey nappies!

Around the Blogosphere

I was sad to hear that Reginald Fuller passed away. He wrote some interesting works on Christology, Resurrection, and a NT Intro. Always worth reading, don't always agree, but always worth reading.

The latest The Biblical Theology Briefings is also available with articles by Dan Strange (Oak Hill College, London) on "The Many-Splendoured Cross" and Mark Meynell (Senior Associate Minister, All Souls, Langham Place) on "The Shedding of Blood for a Sin-ravaged world: Personal Reflections on the Recent Atonement Debates".

Another Aussie has entered the blogosphere in Joe Mock in his blog Eden or Edan. Joe is Pastor of an Indonesian Presbyterian Church in Sydney. Greg Carey of Lancaster Theological Seminary has launched his own blog entitled NT Geeks. And Reformed/Charismatic Theologian Sam Storms also has a blog called Enjoying God Ministries.

And David Kirk is continuing his reflections on theological study.

I also have to include this cartoon for bloggers who are preachers too!

HT: Wade Burleson

Sam Storms on Ministry and the SBC

I have just read an excellent interview with Sam Storm (former professor at Wheaton College and Storms is a charismatic Reformed theologian - all too rare). I have to include his assessment about things in the SBC which many should consider (at least if you're interested in the SBC):

Within the Southern Baptist landscape right now, what issues do you see driving our mutual discussion? Is there an overarching issue that relates to all of the things abuzz in the Convention? If so, what is it?

The issues are much the same as they’ve been for generations. The things Christians disagree and argue about are fairly constant: the sovereignty of God and human responsibility, especially as it relates to evangelism and missions; the role of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts in particular; the role of women in ministry and leadership; eschatology, spontaneity vs. liturgy in worship, etc. These and a few other issues are almost always at the center of debate, not just among Baptists but across denominational lines.

The one thing these issues have in common is that none of them is central to the gospel itself. They are all, at best, secondary doctrines, or doctrines on which Christ-exalting, Bible-believing Christians can and often do disagree. Sadly, some question the evangelical credentials of anyone who might dare to differ with their view on Calvinism or whether miraculous gifts occur today or the timing of the rapture or the nature of the millennium.

But there is something else that is even more disturbing, and that is the angry and divisive dogmatism that is emerging over behavioral issues on which the Bible is either silent or leaves one’s decision in the realm of Christian freedom. Perhaps the greatest threat to unity and acceptance in the Church is the tendency to treat particular life-style and cultural preferences as though they were divine law. To be even more specific, it’s the tendency to constrict or reduce or narrow the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, either by demanding what the Bible doesn’t require or forbidding what the Bible clearly permits.

My experience has been that this is typically driven by one of three things: either an unjustified fear of being “spiritually contaminated” by too close contact with the surrounding culture, or an unbridled ambition to gain power over the lives of others, or a failure to believe and trust in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ (or all three combined).

I’m concerned that in certain segments of the Convention there is a mindset reminiscent of the old “fundamentalism” that is characterized by isolationism, separatism, anti-intellectualism, cultural withdrawal, and a generally angry and judgmental attitude toward all those who dare to differ on these matters that quite simply don’t matter; at least they don’t matter nearly as much as whether or not you believe in the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Whereas conservative evangelicalism has typically drawn the line on theological essentials, this more recent fundamentalism draws the line ever more narrowly on issues such as total abstinence vs. moderation in the use of alcohol, the degree of freedom and the role of affections in public worship, the legitimacy of so-called “private prayer language,” etc. Sadly, when one’s commitment to Christ and the authority of Scripture is judged on the basis of this latter group of issues, rather than the former, the situation is bleak indeed.

MB: Well said Sammy!

HT: Justin Taylor

Good Friday Reflection

I have a sermon called Gospelizing 101 where I exposit Rom. 3.21-26. There I reflect on God's righteousness and the atonement and I also go into 1 Pet. 2.24 which says: "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness". This lends itself to one of my favourite illustrations of the atonement:

During World War II, there was a group of Australian prisoners in a Japanese POW camp in South East Asia. One of the prisoners tried to escape in order to find some food. He was caught and sentenced to receive a flogging. His physical condition was so terrible that the beating would surely kill him. Knowing this, the chaplain of the camp offered to take the flogging in his place. The Japanese commandant was astounded by this as he had never understood Western morality and out of curiosity he gave permission for the chaplain to take the flogging. The chaplain was taken to a tree, stripped naken, tied up, and viscously flogged. The prisoner who tried to escape was forced to watch and he saw the Chaplain’s body being broken and bloodied by the whip as the chaplain was flogged until he lost consciousness and then flogged some more. Later he wrote in his diary, “It was at that moment that I finally understood the Bible when it says, ‘He himself bore our sins in his body when he hung upon the tree’.”.

Early Christianity and Buddhism

Stephen Carlson (former lawyer come NT student) has a post on Clement of Alexandria on Buddhism. I found this interesting because I was once studying various missionary movements in the Graeco-Roman world including Judaism and Christianity, but I also noticed that Christian authors were aware of the existence of Buddhist teachers and missionaries in places such as Egypt, Asia Minor and Britain. In fact, Elaine Pagels in her book Gnostic Gospels argued for the influence of Buddhism on Thomasine Christianity. Here a few citations that I have tracked down on the internet (I have not double checked the primary sources just yet).

Clement of Alexandria recognized the influence of Bactrian Buddhists (Sramanas) and Indian Gymnosophists on Greek thought: "Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanas among the Bactrians ("Σαρμαναίοι Βάκτρων"); and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour's birth, and came into the land of Judaea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas ("Σαρμάναι"), and others Brahmins ("Βραφμαναι")." (Strom 1.15).

Origen stated that Buddhists co-existed with Druids in pre-Christian Britain: "The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead" (Commentary on Ezekiel).

Hippolytus knew of the Indian Brahmins and includes their tradition among the various sources of heresy: “There is . . . among the Indians a heresy of those who philosophize among the Brahmins, who live a self-sufficient life, abstaining from (eating) living creatures and all cooked food … They say that God is light, not like the light one sees, nor like the sun nor fire, but to them God is discourse, not that which finds expression in articulate sounds, but that of knowledge through which the secret mysteries of nature are perceived by the wise” (Adv. Haer).

Scythianus was an Alexandrian religious teacher who visited India around 50 CE. He is mentioned by several Christian writers of the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, including Cyril of Jerusalem, Hippolytus and Epiphanius. Cyril of Jerusalem says this of his pupil Terebinthus: “But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judaea he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas." (Catechetical Lecture 6.23)

John and the Synoptics

I am in the process of preparing some course material on the Fourth Gospel and have been wrestling with the relationship between John and the Synoptics. I found this taxonomy helpful:

• John wrote a spiritual Gospel to interpret or harmonize the other Gospels (Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius).
• John intended to displace the Synoptics (e.g. Windish)
• John is essentially independent of the Synoptics (Dodd, Gardner-Smith)
• John has access to Synoptic-like material (Bultmann)
• John has Synoptic and non-Synoptic sources (Neirynck)
• John knew Mark and had to cater to public knowledge of Mark (Bauckham)
• John rewrites the Synoptics along the lines of midrash or reinterpretation (Brodie)

See further: MacKay, Ian D. 2004. John’s Relationship with Mark (WUNT 2.128; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck).

Following up on Bauckham's proposal, to what extent do John 1.32, 3.24, 6.70, and 11.1-2 presuppose or clarify Mark? Or do they simply reflect common knowledge about Jesus and his ministry?

Which Promises?

My two standard proof-texts for arguing that the promises of the OT find their fulfillment in Christ are:

2 Corinthians 1:20: For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

Acts 13:32-33: "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus.

I would add that the promises referred to in both passages are specifically the Abrahamic promises of blessings for the nations, land, and descendents.

Evangelical Missal

I am glad to say that I am co-operating with my friend Jim Hamilton in creating an Evangelical Missal, or a book of daily readings for Evangelicals that includes a written prayer, two portions of Scripture, a stanza from a hymn, and citation from a creed/confession/catechism. It is has been an immense blessing to myself to be preparing it as part of my quiet times. Here's an example which has as its theme the parousia of the Lord:

Prayer

Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (and the Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
- Didache 10.6.

Scripture

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am (John 14:1-3).

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean (Revelation 19:11-14).

Hymn

Lo, He comes with clouds descending
Once for favoured sinners slain
Thousands thousand saints attending
Swell the triumph of His train
Alleluia! Alleleuia! God appears on earth to reign.
- Charles Wesley and Martin Madan

Confession

God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.

- BFM 2000, 10.

Paul and Women - Articles to Read

There's a lot of stuff out there on Paul and women, but works that I have found helpful of late that are both exegetically sound, theologically sensitive, and also irenic in spirit, are:

Blomberg, Craig L. ‘Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul,’ in Paul and His Theology, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Pauline Studies 3; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 283-326.

Sarah Sumner, Men and Women in the Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004). See the interview with Sumner here .

Saving Righteousness of God NOW available in US

I am glad to say that my book The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies in Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective is now available on the US mainland through Wipf & Stock. Also Kevin Bywaters intends on interacting with the volume on his blog By Living Waters.

The New Covenant - Guest Post by Bill Dumbrell

I am glad to include a guest post by Bill Dumbrell on "the New Covenant" which I hope will inform many of the work that Bill has done in the past in this subject and arouse the attention of others to the significance of "covenant" for biblical theology.

- MB

The New Covenant

The New Covenant of Luke 22:20 was Jesus' only significant interpretation of the purpose of his death, fulfilling by his resurrection the prophetic expectations of a revived Israel (cf. Ezek 36:25-27, Ezek 37:1-14 and Ezek 37:14-28 with John 3 and 4). In the construction of NT theology, we must give major weight to Jesus' action. Like the intersecting covenants of the OT (see my publications, 1984, 2002) we might expect the significance of the New Covenant to control the future of the revived Israel of Acts 2 (see my Romans 2005 and, published in Australia, Galatians and John).

The onset of the New Covenant meant the full implementation of God's undertaking to Noah (Gen 6:18) to maintain his covenanted purposes for the New Creation (Gen 1:26-28; Gen 2 - see Dumbrell 2002). I note that the use of heqim berit (Gen 6:18a) in the OT always points to maintenance, not commencement. Moreover, Gen 6:18b with 6:18a indicates that the salvation of Noah is that maintenance of purpose for creation. 'Covenant' from Gen 6:18a onwards becomes the language by which God's promise structure for history proceeds. That a divine intention to bring to a conclusion the work commenced with creation should be given the title of 'covenant' should not surprise. Biblical covenants are divine promises unilaterally imposed, firmly backed by covenant arrangement.

Jeremiah's New Covenant which Jesus' death and resurrection inaugurated, but not completely implemented until the Parousia, meant the dismissal of disobedient national Israel's election for service and the end of her institutions: law, temple, sacrificial atonement etc. Divine creational law (cf. the Decalogue), however, continues with a general obligation for all and to be written in the heart of believers (OT and NT). Jesus' New Covenant meant the onset of the New Creation age begun by the appointment of a New Israel (cf. John 20:22 correlated with John 1:12).

The New Covenant was thus the implementation of the Abrahamic Covenant of which the Sinai Covenant with Israel had been a subset. Paul's New Covenant ministry (2 Cor 3:6) that recognized all of this (cf. Rom 6:14, Gal 2:23, 2 Cor 3:6) confronted Jewish Christians (cf. 3:6 - note the present of 'kills') who saw Jesus as operating within the continuing Mosaic Covenant.

This was the problem facing Paul in Galatians, Romans and 2 Corinthians and we may see traces of it elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles. Paul's in his appraisal of Israel carefully recognized the changed position resulting from the cross (cf. Rom 2:1-3:20; 9:30-10:8; 7:1-6, 6:14, etc.).

The general reluctance of NT scholarship to accept a covenant emphasis, in view of Jesus' action and the Jewish character of the early church is puzzling. It is an undervaluing of how OT theology of kingdom and covenant works its way through the whole Bible. The usual objections of lack of reference to the terms, apply to the OT as well as to the new but the notion is basic to the correlation of the two Testaments/Covenants.

Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King to be published in September

My dissertation Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King is scheduled to be published in September by Walter de Gruyter in the BNZW series. Here is a brief summary of the argument:

In two places in the First Gospel (Matt 10:5b-6; 15:24) the Messianic mission of Jesus and his disciples is limited to a group called ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’. In light of Matthews intense interest in Jesus’ Davidic Messiahship and the Jewish Shepard-King traditions surrounding King David it is argued that this refers to remnants of the former northern kingdom of Israel who continued to reside in the northern region of the ideal Land of Israel.

The Contents are as follows:

Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction to Part One: The Messianic Shepherd-King in Ancient Judaism
Chapter Two: The Davidic Shepherd-King and his Flock
Introduction to Part Two: The Messianic Shepherd-King in the Gospel of Matthew
Chapter Three: Jesus the Shepherd-King of Israel (Matthew 2:6)

Chapter Four: Sheep without a Shepherd-King (Matthew 9:36)

Chapter Five: The Struck Shepherd-King and the Refined Flock (Matthew 26:31)
Chapter Six: The Messianic Shepherd-King and the Land-Kingdom Motif: Matthew’s Hope for Territorial Restoration

Conclusion to Part Two: The Messianic Shepherd-King in the Gospel of Matthe
Introduction to Part Three: The Matthean Shepherd-King and the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
Chapter Seven: The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel in Matthew 10:6
Chapter Eight: The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel in Matthew 15:24

Chapter Nine: Conclusion
Appendix
Bibliography

The Forgiving Face of God

This is an article I have written for the Evangelical Covenant Church's demoninational Magazine, Covenant Companion. I thought I would share it here.

Pop-Pop’s Shining
I called my grandfather, Pop-pop—I’m not sure exactly why, but I never thought twice about it; that’s what we called him. As a child I can only remember him dressed in his blue work clothes, even on Sundays—he wasn’t a church goer, with his name “Joe” stitched into his shirt pocket. As a person, he was as blue collar as his clothes, working all his life as a mechanic. Joe Zarka smoked unfiltered Camel cigarettes and ate eggs and bacon for breakfast every morning; he was a man’s man. I loved Pop-pop, because as much as he was a hard man, I knew he loved us grandkids.

We lived next door to Mom-mom and Pop-pop and highlights of my childhood years include those countless nights when I spent the night at their house. These evenings would often have included macaroni and cheese, chocolate pudding and games of Yahtzee.

When I would spend the night, Pop-pop performed an evening ritual that I have never forgotten. After putting us kids to bed, Pop-pop would always watch the 11:00 pm news. When the news finished, he would go around to all the rooms, crack the bedroom doors, and shine his flashlight into the beds. When I was a child, and if I was with my sisters or cousins or whoever, we often be horsing around in bed, but would quickly stop what money business we were doing as he walked up the hallway. Then when he shined the flashlight on us we did our best acting job pretending we were sleeping.

I used to think that he shined his flashlight on us to make sure we were behaving, but I came to realize, upon much later reflection, that he was checking to make sure we were safe. Pop-pop loved us and felt that he was responsible for our wellbeing. Now when I think of him, I think of him shining his flashlight late at night into my bunk. When I think of my Pop-pop, I think of him shining his flashlight on me.

Isn’t this how we are, we remember significant people by things they do. Our minds capture the essence of people by their action. What action comes to your mind when you think of significant people in your life past or present? What action captures how you see God?
I think God understands that this is how we work and in the Bible he has given us an image of his activity by which we can envision his essence.

God’s Forgiving
The image is first referred to in Exodus 34, where we see an intimate encounter between God and Moses. The rendezvous takes place in the Sinai wilderness while Israel was in route to the Promise Land. Moses had just come through the most difficult test of his leadership to date. The Israelites forsook God by constructing and worshipping a golden calf (Exod 32—33). Having convinced God to remain with his people, Moses asks to see God’s glory (Exod 33:12-18). God responds positively to Moses’ request and agrees to “cause his glory to pass in front” of him, meanwhile proclaiming his “name” in Moses’ presence. However, God warns “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exod 33:19-20). When God encounters Moses, he shelters him in the cleft of a rock and passes by him revealing to Moses only his back. As God passes in front of Moses, he proclaims:

The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin (Exod 34:6-7a).

Moses responded to this word with the humility and worship that such a significant truth deserved (Exod 34:8).

Within these twenty-seven words the most profound reality is contained. Here we discover God’s primary activity. In these verses we find what God thinks is his most characteristic activity. The Bible provides for us an authoritative picture of God’s most distinctive practice: the act of loving and forgiving.

The Bible teaches that when we think of God, we should think of him forgiving us. As God’s presence, his face, passed before Moses, he met the God who forgives; he saw a forgiving face.

The idea that forgiveness is second nature to God is not at all confined to this one Bible passage. For example, Psalm 86:5 states, “You are forgiving and good, O Lord, abounding in love to all who call on you”; and again in Psalm 103:3, the Bible asserts “[the Lord] forgives all your sins”.

Finally, perhaps one of the more well-known verses in the New Testament, 1 John 1:9, confirms:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 1:9 makes two significant points about God’s forgiveness. One relates to humanity, while the second to God. In the first place, the text makes plain that the forgiveness God does is not unconditional: we must “confess” our sins. Biblically confession means “to say the same thing” or “to agree”. In this context it means to agree with God about the reality and pervasiveness of sin. The verses immediately preceding and following verse nine state, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (v. 8) and “If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” (v. 10). Thus, a precondition for God’s forgiving action on our behalf is our agreement with his view of sin.

Second, and perhaps most significant, the verse teaches us about God. The passage states that God will be “faithful”. This means that he will be true to his nature and, therefore, he will forgive. In addition, the verse says God is “just”. In other words, he will keep his word of promise that when his people confess their sins he will hear and forgive (1 Kings 8:30, 46-51; 9:3).

Our Thinking and Forgiving
The Scriptures, then, encourage readers to contemplate God’s forgiving tendency to such an extent that it directs the currents of our thoughts and affects our emotions and actions.

The Bible challenges us to meditate on, embrace, and be gripped by the thought that God forgives. Here’s the big idea: when you think of God, think of him forgiving you. This simple and profound truth is grounded in God’s own personal introduction to Moses, repeated in the Psalms and affirmed in the New Testament not only in specific propositions as in 1 John 1:9, but also in Jesus’ self-giving sacrifice for sin. We might remember what the angel of the Lord told Joseph: “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21).

When we are enraptured by the idea of God’s forgiveness, it has the potential of transforming our lives. People who encounter the forgiving God in an intensely personal manner are profoundly secure and emotionally whole, or at least becoming so. At the same time, they are deeply humble and forgiving toward others. Jesus illustrated the antithesis of this attitude and behavior with the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:21-35).

The gist of the story involves a servant who owed his master a large sum of money. Without the ability to repay him the servant’s fate was a life of slavery. In an amazing turn of events, the master released the servant from the debt and forgave him. Although the servant was forgiven, he did not show the same kind of generosity to a fellow servant who owed him a much smaller sum and threw him in prison. The resolution of the story comes when the master reverses his decision to forgive and has the servant thrown into prison and tortured until he repays his debt. Jesus concludes the story saying, “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart” (Matt 18:35). The rather harsh point of this parable is uncompromising: to know the forgiving God and yet not forgive is nothing short of an affront to God’s very being and is, therefore, incongruent with the nature of true followers of God the Father and Jesus his Son.

In spite of this hard word of Jesus, the reality of our broken lives makes doing forgiveness either hard or nearly impossible in certain situations. The sharp edge of this truth seems to become quickly dulled by the deeply wounding circumstances of divorce, abuse, dishonesty and broken promises. How do we forgive a father who left behind not just a family, but then a litany of broken promises? How do we forgive a person who preyed on us violating a sacred trust and steeling away our innocence? These are hard questions with uneasy answers. And while the depth of pain can be and is a shared experience, no one should presume to prescribe a method for forgiveness.

The best I can do is to remind you that God’s chief activity is forgiving sinners and to point you to God’s forgiving face, bloodied as it was, as he died on a tree forgiving those who unjustly killed him and giving his life so we can be forgiven. God’s forgiveness is able to erase every injustice and sin humanity can inflict on itself. 

New Paternoster Catalogue

The latest Paternoster Catalogue is out with some interesting volumes, including one by Mike Bird (p. 18 - for those who want to see a photo). It includes Seyoon Kim's update of F.F. Bruce's WBC 1 & 2 Thessalonians commentary, I. Howard Marshall has a new book on the atonement called Aspects of Atonement which looks good (see esp. the chapter on resurrection and justification)! Andrew Perriman has an interesting book out that combined postmodern missions and NT studies called Re:Mission.

New Blogs 17

The Church Then and Now: Currents Trends in the Church is a missional/emergent blog dedicated to missions, evangelism, postmodernism, and emergent type-stuff. It is run by Eddie Gibbs and Kurt Fredrickson both from Fuller Seminary.

New Pistis Christou Book

Over at Mohr [Siebeck] this volume has just come out and relates to the pistis christou or 'faith of Christ' debate:

Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich
Christusglaube
Studien zum Syntagma pistis Christou und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung

(WUNT 2.227; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007)

Karl Friedrich Ulrichs untersucht die in paulinischen Rechtfertigungskontexten siebenmal (Röm 3,22.26; Gal 2,16.20; 3,22; Phil 3,9, vgl. 1Thess 1,3) belegte Wendung "Glaube Christi". Spätestens seit der Arbeit von Richard B. Hays 1984 zu Gal 3 ist die syntaktische Bestimmung des Genitivs, die Semantik von "Glaube" und damit die inhaltliche Interpretation des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsdenkens umstritten. Der Autor schlägt vor, die notorische Engführung einer Alternative genitivus subiectivus/obiectivus in der philologischen Debatte zu überwinden. Er stellt die in der bisherigen Forschung vorgebrachten Argumente dar, ordnet und gewichtet sie und zeigt das Problem im jeweiligen Kontext der Belege auf. Dabei wird die kontinentaleuropäische mit der - in diesem wichtigen theologischen Gedanken der Soteriologie abweichenden - angelsächsischen Forschung ins Gespräch gebracht und die Diskussion um die new perspective on Paul wird so erweitert. In methodischer Hinsicht liegt hier eine auf Kriterien der klassischen gräzistischen Philologie bezogene und das principle of maximal redundancy verwendende Untersuchung vor, die das Recht des traditionellen Verständnisses von Pistis Christou und der entsprechenden Soteriologie sowie Anliegen der neuen Paulus-Perspektive zusammenbringt. Es zeigt sich, dass Paulus dieses Syntagma prägt und damit eine Integration verschiedener von ihm aufgenommener soteriologischer Modelle (Rechtfertigung, Partizipation, Geistbegabung) leistet.

My thanks to Ben Myers for telling me of this volume!

Saldarini on Paul

Here's a good quote from Anthony Saldarini:

(1) His adherence to the Pharisaic mode of interpreting the law led him to attack a group which mounted a major challenge to the Pharisaic way of life. As some of the Pharisees had challenged and plotted against Jesus (according to the gospels), so Paul the Pharisee attacked the followers of Jesus who threatened Pharisaic influence on Jews and who more and more taught a significantly different understanding of Torah and the Jewish way of life. The Pharisees and the followers of Jesus especially clashed on the importance of purity laws, tithes and other ‘boundary mechanisms’ for maintaining the integrity of God’s people. (2) Paul kept the law as one was supposed to and achieved the righteousness from the law that was proper to it, Paul is not referring to a highly complex doctrine of works-righteousness vs. grace-righteousness, but simply saying that he lived a good life according to the rules. Paul’s point is that he was humanly acceptable according to the ordinary Jewish norms for proper behaviour toward God and fellow Jews; he had lived up to the expectation of society’s code of behaviour and could not be rejected as a disgruntled failure.

Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), 134-37.

Augustine on John's Gospel

I am currently reading through Simon Gathercole's book The Pre-existent Son (see the sidebar) and elsewhere I have come across this quote from Augustine about John's Gospel:

In the four Gospels, or rather in the four books of the one Gospel, Saint John the apostle, not undeservedly in respect of his spiritual understanding compared to the eagle, has elevated his preaching higher and far more sublimely than the other three; and in this elevating of it he would have our hearts likewise lifted up. For the other three evangelists walked with the Lord on earth as with a man; concerning His divinity they have said but little; but this evangelist, as if he disdained to walk on earth, just as in the very opening of his discourse he thundered on us, soared not only above the earth and above the whole compass of air and sky, but even above the whole army of angels and the whole order of invisible powers, and reached to Him by whom all things were made; saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Lectures on St. John, 36.1).

Of note is that Augustine does not deny that Jesus' divinity is taught in the Synoptic Gospels, but he emphasizes that John accentuates it more than others.

Counter Imperial Connotations in the Acts of Paul

In the Acts of Paul (specifically the Martyrdom of Paul) there is a story of how Nero's cupbearer, Patroclus, hears Paul preach, is killed when he falls out of a window, Paul revives him, and then Nero hears that Patroclus is alive. Then we read:

But Nero, when he heard of the death of Patroclus, was sore grieved, and when he came in from the bath he commanded another to be set over the wine. But his servants told him, saying: Caesar, Patroclus liveth and standeth at the table. And Caesar, hearing that Patroclus lived, was affrighted and would not go in. But when he went in, he saw Patroclus, and was beside himself, and said: Patroclus, livest thou? And he said: I live, Caesar. And he said: Who is he that made thee to live? And the lad, full of the mind of faith, said: Christ Jesus, the king of the ages. And Caesar was troubled and said: Shall he, then, be king of the ages and overthrow all kingdoms? Patroclus saith unto him: Yea, he overthroweth all kingdoms and he alone shall be for ever, and there shall be no kingdom that shall escape him. And he smote him on the face and said: Patroclus, art thou also a soldier of that king? And he said: Yea, Lord Caesar, for he raised me when I was dead. And Barsabas Justus of the broad feet, and Urion the Cappadocian, and Festus the Galatian, Caesar's chief men, said: We also are soldiers of the king of the ages. And he shut them up in prison, having grievously tormented them, whom he loved much, and commanded the soldiers of the great king to be sought out, and set forth a decree to this effect, that all that were found to be Christians and soldiers of Christ should be slain.

The counter imperial notions here are obvious and the kingdom of God/Christ/Ages is clearly set over and against the kingdom of Rome. In fact, it is this subversive and treacherous line of thinking that Christ will overthrow Rome that is the reason for Nero's anger and violence. It makes me wonder if the phrase "soldier" in the NT (1 Cor. 9.7; Phil. 2.25; 2 Tim. 2.3-4; Philm. 1.2) is more than a metaphor but has a bit of anti-Roman sting to it. The "Fresh Perspective" was certainly operating in the late second or early third century.

Blogging through Bird

I am glad to say that Brian Brown (no, not the Aussie actor) is doing a rolling blog review of my book: The Saving Righteousness of God. I am grateful for the kind words that Brian has said so far and am most pleased that people are finding the volume helpful.

Caneday on VanLandingham

Ardel Caneday (fresh from Cambridge) gives us his response to Chris VanLandingham's book Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul on his blog Biblia Theologica. As I'm currently reading this book (on weekends) and preparing an article review, I was most interested in his response and I am glad to say that I am in agreement with his critique.

The Fresh Perspective ain't so Fresh

I'm aware that in recent times a lot of attention has been paid in Pauline studies to the counter-imperial connotations of Paul's gospel and N.T. Wright's "Fresh Perspective on Paul" with the socio-political overtones of Paul's message. But lately I've been reading some of the works of William Ramsay including The Cites of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought. Ramsay has a section on "The Empire as the World's Hope" and sets out the theological and political vacuum created by the Roman civil wars and how the mood was ripe for the coming of Augustus and the Imperial Cult. It seems that Ramsay beat Horsley and Wright to the punch since he argues that Paulinism and the Empire were in direct competition with each other.

"A universal Paulinism and a universal Empire must either coalesce, or the one must destroy the other."

"More able and prudent Emperors dreaded the Pauline Church, because they recognised that ultimately it must be a foe to autocracy. The Christians were, in the last resort, the reforming party: the Emperors felt that reform must affect their own power."

In Ramsay's view the failure of the Empire was (1) it was based on military and military authority that was always prone to abuse; and (2) Rome never found a way to educate and improve the lives of the masses.

Gal. 3.28 and 2 Clement 12

In reading through 2 Clement, I found this intriguing passage:

2 Clement 12:1-6 - "1 Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, since we know not the day of the appearing of God. 2 For the Lord Himself, being asked by one when His kingdom would come, replied, "When two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female." 3 Now, two are one when we speak the truth one to another, and there is unfeignedly one soul in two bodies. 4 And "that which is without as that which is within" meaneth this: He calls the soul "that which is within," and the body "that which is without." As, then, thy body is visible to sight, so also let thy soul be manifest by good works. 5 And "the male with the female, neither male nor female," this meaneth, that a brother seeing a sister should think nothing about her as of a female, nor she think anything about him as of a male. 6 If ye do these things, saith He, the kingdom of my Father shall come."

This text, part of the agrapha, seems to stand within a trajectory between Gal. 3.28/Col. 3.11 on the one hand and the gnostic conception of androgyny on the other hand. The author of 2 Clement interprets this saying essentially in an ethical sense with "speaking the truth to one another" and the "good works" of the soul. Yet the reference at the end to the "Kingdom of the Father" is clearly reminiscient of same phrase in the Gospel of Thomas. Given that 2 Clement has a background in Jewish Christianity, do we have here further evidence (hinted at in Gos Thom 12) for a Jewish Christian origin for Christian Gnosticism?

Latest JETS

NT highlights from the latest issue of JETS include:

Jan L. Verbruggen
Of Muzzles and Oxen: Deuteronomy 25:4 and 1 Corinthians 9:9

Dennis W. Jowers
The Meaning of morphe in Philippians 2:6-7

Peter Jones
Paul Confronts Paganism in the Church: A Case Study of First Corinthians 15:45

Joe Noe
An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of Revelation

Evangelicals and Eschatology Conference

Evangelicals and Eschatology:
Edwards’ History of the Work of Redemption
to LaHaye / Jenkins’ Left Behind

Day conference with presentations by

David W. Bebbington
Professor of History, Stirling University

George M. Marsden
Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History, University of Notre Dame

St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews
Monday, 30 April 2007

10:30 coffee, 11:00 start, with reception to follow
Cost: £20 staff / £10 student

Please send payment (cheques payable to St Mary’s College) by Friday, 13 April.
Short paper presentations are welcome; please send a 100- to 200-word abstract to the address below by Friday, 30 March.

Please direct any enquiries and payment to Darren Schmidt, e-mail dws7@st-andrews.ac.uk or c/o St Mary’s College, South Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9JU http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity.

I'm thinking of offering a short paper on one of these topics:

• Detoxing Dispensationalists: 10 Easy Steps
• Lord, Saves Us from the Apocalyptic Soap Opera of the Left-Behind Series!
• Evangelicals and the Apocalyptic Jesus: A Way Forward

Theological Studies Position

The Biblical Seminary of the Philippines (BSOP) is searching for a lecturer in biblical/theological studies.

Ministry Description: Only about 2% of the 2 million Filipino-Chinese are evangelical Christians. Biblical Seminary of the Philippines (BSOP), a nondenominational institution, was established to help reach them by teaching, mentoring, and equipping church and mission leadership. It now also trains Chinese from other Asian nations. Some classes are taught in English; others in Mandarin.

Type of Worker Needed: The workers should have a PhD, though a ThM is acceptable. They should have teaching and church experience. They should have good English skills. Though not required, it would be helpful if they also know some Mandarin and have studied the history and culture of the Chinese.

Length of Service: Long Term (> 3years)

Gender: Male or Female

Marital Status: Married or Single

Path of Service: Interested workers need to be both accepted by OMF and welcomed by BSOP. For the latter to happen, they must agree with the BSOP Statement of Beliefs and Core Values. Plus, they should come and teach a modular course to show that they are effective in the classroom. Once here for longer-term service, they would spend their initial three months learning some of the Tagalog language and culture. Then they would be seconded to BSOP.

Life Style: Professional. Workers must feel called to the busy life of ministry in a megacity. They should be creative and flexible, while working under local leaders. They must know how to handle stress and delays. Due to the pressure of living and working in a cross-cultural situation in the tropics, they should be spiritually and psychologically mature and have a good health record.

Contact BSOP if you are interested.

What if Paul went East?

During Paul's Aegean mission, Luke reports that: "When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia , but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them" (Acts 16.7). I wonder what would have happened if Paul went into Bithynia and Pontus then into Armenia and perhaps even Adiabene (where some Jewish missionaries had found a ripe field, see Josephus, Ant. 20.17-96)? And then on to Babylon and after that, where? Parthia? Or even India? We can only speculate. Although I have not read the article yet, I hope to one day get hold of: Richard Bauckham, ‘What if Paul had Travelled East rather than West?’ in Virtual History and the Bible, ed. J. C. Exum (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 171-184.

For those of us in New Testament studies, anything east of Galatia is bit of a mystery. But you only have to read Horace and Revelation to know the seriousness of the threat that Parthia served to Roman clients in the east. The Euphrates was a de facto border between the two empires and it was not until the campaigns of Trajan 116-17 CE that Rome was able to subdue Parthia. For some useful maps of the Parthinian empire see these which include Parthia at the height of its powers. Essentially the Parthinian empire took over from the shrinking Seleucid empire and soon controlled modern Iran, Iraq, Armenia and parts of Turkey and Afghanistan.

For another good map of the Roman empire see this one which is searchable.

Looking for a page number?

In my notes, I have this quote from Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2000):

"A straightforward reading of the Gospels’ portrait of the burial has been challenged by revisionist scholars, who theorize that Jesus died in a mass crucifixion: the body was thrown into a common, shallow trench, to become carrion for vultures and scavenging dogs. This makes for vivid drama but implausible history. Pilate, after all, had been forced in the face of Jewish opposition to withdraw his military shields from public view in the city when he first acceded to power. What likelihood was there, especially after Sejanus’ death, that he would get away with flagrantly exposing the corpse of an executed Jew beyond the interval permitted by the Torah, and encouraging its mutilation by scavengers just outside Jerusalem? Revisionism can be productive. But it can also become more intent on explaining away traditional beliefs than on coming to grips with the evidence at hand, and I think this is a case in point ..."

Does anyone have a copy of this book or immediate access to it and can they tell me what page number the quote is from? It would be a great help.

Paul for the People of God

Pauline studies is alot like the mafia, every time you think you're out they drag you back in! I'm largely a Historical Jesus specialist and Synoptic Gospels kind-a-guy, though I find myself taking extended vacations in the resort of Pauline studies and even pining for a trek in the scenic mountains of Johannine studies too. But it is back to Paul now and my latest project (this time with IVP) is this:

Paul for the People of God

This volume is designed to be an introduction to Paul for lay-people and first year seminary students. I am hoping that I can take the best insights of Pauline scholarship and show how they illuminate Paul's understanding of the gospel, of Christian community, salvation, ministry, Paul's narrative world, and controversial areas such as women and homosexuality as well. There are a stack of Pauline theologies available, but relatively few volumes that try to put Paul in the hands of the church - and that's what I want to do. Get people in my church and your church excited about Paul, thoughtfully reading over his letters, and see what he has to say to the people of God today. Here's the run down:

1. What is Paul?
2. A Funny Thing Happened on the Road to Damascus
3. Athens and Jerusalem
4. The Stories behind the Story
5. Reading Somebody Else’s Mail
6. The Royal Announcement: The Son of David, Son of God
7. One God, One Lord: Monotheism and the Messiah
8. Putting the World to Right
9. The Return of the King
10. A Peculiar People
11. Women, Slaves and Homosexuals
12. Paul at the Postmodern Areopagus

Revolutionaries and Economics

In Mk. 11.15-17 and Jn. 2.13-25 we are given two pictures of Jesus' action in the temple. Was the motivation for the cleansing/symbolic-act the intermingling of economics with religion or even the corruption of the priesthood (John), or was it because of a zealous nationalism that prohibited Gentiles from worship in the temple and had turned the temple into a talisman of national resistance against Rome (Mark)?

I think it worth mentioning that there is a link between economic oppression and revolutionary fervour so that zealotry and economics are not mutually exclusive options. Consider the following examples from Josephus:

Link between banditry and insurrection: Josephus notes how bandits urged the inhabitants of Judea to revolt against the Romans: 'Now when these were quieted, it happened, as it does in a diseased body, that another part was subject to an inflammation; for a company of deceivers and bandits got together, and persuaded the Jews to revolt, and exhorted them to assert their liberty, inflicting death on those who continued in obedience to the Roman government, and saying, that such as willingly chose slavery, ought to be forced from their desired inclinations for they parted themselves into different bodies, and lay in wait up and down the country, and plundered the houses of the great men, and slew the men themselves, and set the villages on fire; and this till all Judea was filled with the effects of their madness. And thus the flame was every day more and more blown up, till it came to a direct war' (War 2.264-65).

Link between zealots and economics: Josephus reports that when the Zealots took control of the temple and the first thing they did was to burn the records of debt: 'after which they carried the fire to the place where the archives were deposited, and made haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to dissolve their obligations for paying their debts; and this was done in order to gain the multitude of those who had been debtors, and that they might persuade the poorer sort to join in their insurrection with safety against the more wealthy; so the keepers of the records fled away, and the rest set fire to them' (War 2.427).

Latest JSHJ (2007)

The latest Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2007) is out and includes the following articles:

Morten Hørning Jensen

Herod Antipas in Galilee: Friend or Foe of the Historical Jesus?

Zeba Crook
Fictionalizing Jesus: Story and History in Two Recent Jesus Novels

Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis
Jesus as The High Priestly Messiah: Part 2

James F. McGrath
Was Jesus Illegitimate? The Evidence of His Social Interactions

Jodi Magness's Assessment of the "Tomb of Jesus" Claim

Jodi Magness of the University of North Carolina is a leading archaeologist of the Land of Israel (see right).

She has written a critical assessment of the claims made by Simcha Jacobovici's (see left) documentary on The Lost Tomb of Jesus. In her assessment titled Has the Tomb of Jesus been Discovered? she concludes:

"The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus and the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus. The claim is also inconsistent with all of the available information—historical and archaeological—about how Jews in the time of Jesus buried their dead, and specifically the evidence we have about poor, non-Judean families such as that of Jesus. It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support".

Deissman on the NT

According to Deissman:

The NT can be understood as "a book of peasants, fishermen, artisans, travellers by land and sea, fighters and martyrs . . . [a book] in cosmpolitan Greek with marks of Semitic origin . . . [a book] of the Imperial age, written at Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome".

G. A. Deissman, Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 392.

Dying and Rising Gods

J. G. Frazer's classic work on the history of religions, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, asserted that much of Christian doctrine can be traced back to ANE myths of dying and rising gods (e.g. Adonis, Osiris, Baal). This view has fallen on hard times in recent years with several works questioning the existence of a uniform myth about dying and rising gods that was reading and waiting in the wings to provide the propulsion behind Christianity, not to mention the methodological objections in making a straight forward comparison between the rituals, texts, and narratives of one or more religions. See further:

Jonathan Z. Smith, ‘Dying and Rising Gods,’ Encyclopedia of Religion (New York, 1987), 4.521-27

Mark S. Smith, ‘The Death of Dying and Rising Gods in the Biblical World,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 12 (1998): 257-313

A more balanced approached has been that of Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (ConBOT 50; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001) who accepts the existence of ANE myths about dying and rising gods but notes their diversity and remains agnostic about their application to Christian origins.

On the internet there are some good reasons to note as well:

Peter Goodgame, The Saviours of the Ancient World which gives a good overview of these dying and rising gods of Egypt and the ANE.

David Frankfurter, ‘Review of Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection,’ in Bryn Mawr Classical Review(2002.09.07) for a good overview of Mettinger and how he relates to Smith and Frazer.

Bill Dumbrell on Biblical Theology

William Dumbrell (Th.D., Harvard University) has taught at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia, Regent College in Vancouver, the Presbyterian Theological Hall in Sydney, Macquarie University in Sydney, and Trinity Theological College in Singapore. He is the author of several works including Covenant and Creation, The Search for Order, The End of the Beginning, The Faith of Israel, The New Covenant: The Synoptics in Context, and Romans: A New Covenant Commentary (note the links are from a prominent Australian Christian bookseller called Koorong and prices are in Australian Dollars).

A central theme in Dumbrell's writings has been "covenant", especially the "new covenant". In a forthcoming article on Gen. 6.18 and Lk. 22.20, Dumbrell writes this:

"All this means that God's in-breaking salvation through Jesus, the cross and the resurrection, provides for eventual fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant (Luke 1:72-75), and in turn leads to the fulfilment of God's total purposes for creation, which was what the Sinai Covenant was designed to effect, and would have done so had Israel seen it as a way for her to have lived as God's people. W.Foerster [TDNT 7.990-01] notes that salvation, kingdom of God, messianic jubilee, and New Covenant, are overlapping descriptions with only slightly different nuances."

Bill Dumbrell's works have several distinct strengths:

1. He takes seriously the Old Testament background of the New Testament.

2. Covenant is one of the basic building blocks of God's relationship with Israel and it carries over in some way into the new covenant era.

3. In Paul's thought, the relationship between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants was a central issue underpinning much of his exegesis of biblical texts and appearing in his argumentation against those who would try to proselytize his Gentile churches.

4. The correlation between the concepts of Kingdom and Covenant is helpful and accurate (Max Turner and Vincent Taylor say similar things on this point too).

At the same time, I often wonder if Dumbrell overplays the covenantal card at certain points. For instance in his reading of Gal. 2.15-21 (see his European Journal of Theology article and his Galatians commentary) I think he gives too much attention to justification as "covenant membership". I think justification is more comprehensive than this in Paul's thought and it has both horizontal and vertical elements. Secondly, the word "covenant" is very rare in the NT and when it does appear it is ordinarily in the context of discontinuity, e.g. 2 Corinthians 3 and Romans 9 (it pains me to say it, but that is one observation where the dispies are actually right!). Thirdly, I think it worthwhile to consider James Dunn's proposal that Paul has a theology of "promise" rather than a theology of "covenant" per se, esp. in Romans 9-11.

Otherwise, Bill Dumbrell has written two recent commentaries on Galatians and John which are worth knowing about and, if you like biblical theology, worth reading.

His volume, Galatians: A New Covenant Commentary is a precis of much of this thought on Paul and covenant. Here is one interesting quote: "The New Covenant in operation would permit the fulfilment of Israel's commission under the Sinai Covenant to implement the Abrahamic covenant in a way which was prevented by Israel's disobedience in the Old Testament. The New Covenant would facilitate a restored, obedient Israel, brought into being in Acts 2, to fulfil its commission imposed by virtue of its election as the people of God (Exod 19:5-6). That commission was for Israel a charge to be the light to the world, to bring about final world change and the full implementation of the kingdom of God. What the New Covenant would mean for an obedient restored Israel in the post-cross era, was world mission. We are no longer operating from Pentecost onwards in terms of Jerusalem as a world centre to which Gentiles will come in submision and obedience. The Promised Land is the now the world itself, now begun in Christian evidence to be seen as a type of the final antitype of the New Creation (p. vi)."

In another new book, John: Gospel Of The New Creation, Dumbrell gives what I would call a theological exegesis of the Fourth Gospel. He says this in the introduction: "John's is the Gospel of newness - new creation, new Israel, new covenant, new birth. It is a towering expression of Christian truth and expectation."

For those who are interested in reading Galatians and John through new covenant lenses, these volumes are quite illuminating, easy to read, and inexpensive.

My thanks to Bill Dumbrell for sending me copies!

Jesus Tomb Round Up

Given that the forthcoming documentary about the "Jesus Tomb" has captured the attention of biblical studies bloggers, I thought I would catalogue some of the responses that have been made by respected scholars. It is my sincere hope that we are not witnessing the davincification of studies of early Christianity with scholars willing to entertain imaginative and groundless theories about recent archaeological discoveries (which really aren't that recent at all) in order to seek fame and fortune.

For an introduction see Michael Pahl, otherwise check out the following responses:

Mark Goodacre
Richard Bauckham
Darrell Bock
Scot McKnight
Ben Witherington
Christianity Today article

For those who crave more information about the Talpiot tomb, I imagine that Tom Wright and Bart Ehrman will probably both have a book out on the subject by the end of next week!

My own response consists of a paraphrase of Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damnable lies, and then there are ossuary statistics!

I leave you with a quote from Ben Witherington: "Make no bones about it--they have not found Jesus' tomb."

Why Preach?

For those of us who pour our time and souls into sermons that some will find refreshing and others will forget in a matter of hours, there is an important reminder as to why we should continually mount the pulpit to preach. Tom Wright gives a good reason!

A church without sermons will soon have a shrivelled mind, then a wayward heart, next an unquiet soul, and finally a misdirected strength.

Tom Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (London: SPCK, 1997), xi.