ETS/SBL 08 Round Up

Rather than do a couple of short posts, I thought I'd give an extended summary of how the conferences went for me.

General

My shoes lasted the whole trip and (so far) there have been no travel hitches. However, tomorrow is the day before Thanksgiving so it's the biggest travel day of the American year, storms are predicted for the mid-west, and I have a sad feeling that I may never see my luggage again when it gets on the plain. Overall it's been a enjoyable and fun conference. All of my books sold out in their respective stalls. Let me add also, that I did see D.A. Carson, and he did recognize me! So I repent in sackcloth and ashtray.

ETS

My paper on Justification/Obedience in Romans 2 went well. I argued that the doers of the law who are justified (Rom. 2.13-16 and 25-29) are Gentile Christians. Doug Moo had a few probing questions, but on the whole, the paper was well received. In the afternoon, Doug Moo gave an excellent paper on Justification and Obedience which was superb (watch JETS for when it comes out). John Piper's evening lecture on the work of Christ was okay. I appreciated what John was doing, but I felt that he unfairly belittled Doug Moo's paper because I think that one can indeed over-emphasize alien righteousness over and against the call to faithfulness and obedience. In fact, Doug Moo did a good job of showing that justification is in a sense "not-yet". Stan Porter's paper on Matthew 28.19-20 and the grammar of obedience was interesting and he gave the best exposition of the relationship between the imperative verb and the participles I have heard (D.A. Carson and Dan Wallace copped some flack from him). I had lunch with some cool guys centred around Chris Bruno and hangeronerers and that was a blast. The Bauckham and Eyewitnesses seminar was alright, but nothing that rocked my world. The ETS banquet included a good summary of the historical of the publication and was appropriately closed off by Andreas Kostenbeger. Once again, many friend were caught up with, esp. those of a Southern Baptist Variety! On Friday, Timothy Gombis gave a sooporb paper on the New Perspective and Romans. It was a rigorous argument for an apocalyptic and pastoral reading of Romans. Expect big things from Tim in the future. Sadly, I had to head off and I missed other NPP papers and the panel review of Scot McKnight's book on Jesus and His Death. The San Diego weather was great and I got to see my usual array of friends too.

IBR

Well best of all, I got into membership. John Goldingay's paper on Israel and canonical stuff (I came in half-way) was good, but sadly Chris Seitz's plane was delayed and he could not respond. The IBR worship with N.T. Wright (PBUH) on Ps 98 and Matthew 13 was good as well and Wright (PBUH) was in his usual good form. Not the least of which I learned that Wright (PBUH) missed the SNTS meeting this year because he was at an evangelistic meeting in the UK. I didn't go to Wright's (PBUH) lecture on "God in Public" because it was packed so I couldn't get in. [Note: PBUH = Peace Be Upon Him].

SBL

If you missed the "Faith of Jesus" debate then give yourself an upper-cut. It was fantastisch! Although we may now have to rename the book Doug Campell Contra Mundum. There were papers by Stan Porter, Doug Campbell, Barry Matlock, Preston Sprinkle, Ardel Caneday, Francis Watson, and Ben Myers. Ben Myers did well despite being the theologian (or lamb) among the Pauline sholars (or wolves). I could not forget meeting Chris Tilling in person and seeing other bloggers like Jim West, James Crossley, Brandon Wason and many, many others. The panel discussion on Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, was good, but Adela Yarbro Collins basically ripped into any historiographical perspective that includes faith or belief in the miraculous. James Crossley gave some arguments against miracles figuring in historical studies. As suspected, Bauckham's replies were both adequate and penetrating. Particularly in his call for "humility" and I wonder who he had in mind? The sites of Asia Minor presentation was okay with many piccies of Ephesus and Rome. Part of me wishes I had made the DSS exhibit, but once you've seen one bit of Hebrew scrawled on sandpaper you've seen them all. My birthday included me getting $175 worth of free books from various generous publishers who wanted to celebrate my birthday with me. I did a Viva for Aberdeen Uni and that went well. The student in question adequately defended a sound thesis. The Johannine literature section was probably the place to be this year and Sandra Schneider should be made an honorary Protestant for her paper. Robert Culpeppar gave a good paper on his journey through Johannine studies and he adopts a modified "community" view. D.A. Carson also did the same topic and it was most interesting. The highlight was when Carson recounted how C.K. Barrett said to him at his viva: "What makes you think that John would be slightly interested in your thesis?". The 1 Esdras consultationg was okay, except for the presenter who went over time and said "in conclusion then" four times before the end. The receptions were fantastic, esp. Scottish Universities Reception, Baker and Sheffield/Phoenix. Many friendships were made, many deals were done, and many careers ruined no doubt as well.

Books

The books I picked up (most of which were free for me) include:

Charles Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians

J.S. Russell, The Parousia (free from the preterist society).

Phil Johnston, The IVP Introduction to the Bible

D.A. Carson & Greg Beale, Commentary on the NT use of the OT

Markus Bockmuehl, Philippians (BNTC)

John Piper, The Future of Justification

Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers

Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians

George Strecker, The Theology of the New Testament

M. Eugene Boring, Mark

Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark

Greetings to all I met and saw there. And that is that!

New Testament Theology - Method

How does one identify the theological contribution of a NT book? Often this is done in categories drawn from systematic theology, e.g. Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, etc. While this approach is not always unhelpful, it can obscure the language and framework in which a biblical author operates. I think that a way to unearth the theological contribution of a given book is in the following method:

1. Examination of Contextual Concerns

By this I mean looking first of all at the distinctive literary form of each document, examining issues of provenance, background, sources, and even the occasion for its composition. The problem here of course is that these matters tend to be highly disputed (e.g. dating of Hebrews and Revelation). It is quite tempting to presuppose them as they long essentially to the genre of "NT Introduction", but one needs to grasp the nettle here before launching into a NT Theology.

2. Inter-textuality

I am convinced that the OT indeed forms the sub-structure of NT Theology (C.H. Dodd) and further to that, that the underlying story of Israel has paramount significance for the story of the Christians and their own theological constructions (e.g. Marvin Pate et. al.). It was reading Peter Stuhlmacher and Craig A. Evans that really drove this home to me as to the importance of the OT in the NT for NT Theology! That's why I'm definitely gonna have a careful read of the new volume by Carson and Beale as a point of entry into the topic. Use of the OT in any given NT document shows their distinctive use of OT types, patterns, and promises and how they connect the story of Jesus, and the church, to the story of Israel.

3. Intra-Canonical Relations

Another feasible direction to take is to situate a NT document in the wider context of early Christianity. The best example of this that I have seen is in Craig Koester's Hebrews commentary where he tries to situate Hebrews against several contexts, e.g. Paul, Hellenists, Jewish Christianity, etc. (see also L.D. Hurst's monograph on Hebrews). How does a given document compare or contrast to other NT documents? For example, Hebrews and Colossians may be at one in criticizing angel-devotion. How does Hebrews on the Law square with Galatians?

4. Theological Consideration

An obvious task is to explicate the theological content of each biblical book. The problem, however, is that usually the topics for discussion are directly importedt from Systematic Theology which can create a round peg vs. square hole situation some times. Any biblical theology worth its salt should allow the author to speak to the issues that he wishes to address in his own language and towards his own purposes. Nonetheless, it would be good to have a number of fixed topics that each NT writer could contribute in a seminar style discussion (a la G.B. Caird). For me these fixed points are: (1) The relationship between Jesus and God; (2) The construal and effect of eschatology of the document; (3) Contribution to community and spiritual formation; (4) analysis to ethics and praxis of the Christian life; and (5) Relationship of the believer to Christ.

5. Reception-History

A final area worthy of investigation is how a document was initially received and interpreted in the early church as a key into its theological meaning.

David Black on being a NT Scholar

Over at David Black on-line, Black writes:

'I have never considered myself an homme-de-lettres in the sense of a "New Testament scholar," for all such notions, in my view, are inordinately superficial. I do not believe that a distinction is to be made between the academic study of Scripture and the devotional reading of same. That is, quite simply, a false disjunction. For me, study and devotion are two sides of the same coin: I study the Bible devotionally, and I perform my daily devotions scientifically. The academic and the affective go hand in glove. Some, I think, are vaguely shocked whenever I say this, but I am quite sure it is not necessary to sacrifice Athens for Jerusalem.'

The whole post is a good example of how to balance academic and devotional study of Scripture.

My ETS-SBL Curse

Once more I go to ETS-SBL in fear and trepidation because:

1. My footwear always malfunctions by either disintegrating or shrinking (last year in DC was agony walking around).

2. Cab drivers always ask me about my accent and want to know if I'm from Milwaukee on the grounds that I look "square and goofy" (true story).

3. Someone always accuses me of heresy.

4. Someone always hands me a pamphlet on why I should home school my kids.

6. I always say "Hi" to N.T. Wright and he never remembers who I am.

7. I always say "Hi" to D.A. Carson and he has a vague recollection of who I am.

8. Some waitress gives me the "look" when I ask her for a half de cafe mochacino with extra sprinkles and a short of caramel.

9. I often end up at the wrong hotel or the wrong convention centre when I arrive in location.

10. I always forget to rock up to some dinner, lunch, or breakfast I was supposed to go to, and incur the disfavour of some friend.

Coming highlights of ETS-SBL

1. Seminar panel reviews of R. Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses at both ETS and SBL.

2. Seeing Ben Myers who, no doubt, will be shadowed by his adoring American fans who will sit around him and listen to his every word.

3. The Faith of Jesus Christ Seminar including the main event: Barry Matlock and Doug Campbell going toe-to-toe, mano-e-mano, no holds barred good old hoot nanny of show down. There will be blood (and possibly wool) on the floor when that one is done. It will be an event to tell your children and your children's children that you were there in Diego for that battle royale.

4. No doubt on Sunday, someone will come up to me and offer to buy me a New York Steak for lunch and a couple of Eerdmans titles because it is my birthday.

The Eastern Orthodox Church - Through Western Eyes

After a visit to Christian Focus Publications, I came away with a copy of Robert Letham's book, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy, A Reformed Perspective. The book did not start well since it begins with this opening sentence: "The doorbell rings. Outide there stands a complete stranger. It is obvious he is from Australia - the hat, with pieces of cork dangling of a string to ward off the flies, is a giveway, and so too is the tanned complexion. First impressions are confirmed by the nasal draw. Apparently, he is a distant cousin. How can this be? He seems so different and alien from one's comfortable surroundings in the English Home Counties. Heis a stranger." This is an example of how you can have a relative who is so completely different. All I can say is: (1) The idea that all Australians walk around with hats with corks in them is a myth; (2) What "nasal drawl" are yout talking about? If you want to talk to someone who is nasal got to Connetticut or New Hampshire where they drink "corfee"! Anyway, my Australian drawl aside, Letham's book is interesting.

Personally, I've always been fascinated by the Orthodox Church. Nice hats, funky beards, and you get to wear black alot. More seriously, I love much of the Greek liturgy esp. that associated with John Chrysostom. In a forthcoming devotional that myself and Jim Hamilton have written, I quote a fair bit of Chrysostom. I think the Orthodox Church (OC) has a better explanation of how the eucharist can look and taste like bread and wine and yet be the body and blood of Christ. I would paraphrase their answer as: "Stuffed if I know, it's just a mystery." I think that is better than the Roman Catholic Church's reply: " Well, you see, there was this guy, Aristotle, who like had this really cool theory about substance and accidents, and you see, the thing is ..."

A few interesting points:

- Athanasius was accused of corruption and organizing the kidnap and murder of a rival bishop. Out of46 years as a Bishop he spent 17 in exile. (I get the feeling that certain orthodox bishops in the American Episcopal Church could find themselves deposed and exiled soon enough!).

- The Arians were known to take out contracts to have certain opponents assassinated by professional hitmen.

- Gregory Nazianzen was ordained as a priest against his will and at the behest of a mob.

- John of Damascus did very well as a theologian under Muslim rule.

- Cyril of Lukaris (1572-1638) Patriarch of Constantinople from 1620 until his death, spent time in Poland in 1596 to strengthen the Orthodox against the Greek Catholic Church. He worked alongside Lutherans and Calvinists and eventually became convinced of Calvinism.

- The OC uses the Septuagint rather than the MT as their OT (why don't we all!). Although I do not know what Letham was thinking when he said that the LXX was the version of the OT that "Jesus and the apostles usually cite" (though Stan Porter would probably be open to the possibility that Jesus did on some ocassions teach in Greek). The OC also includes Jubilees, Mart. Isaiah, and the Ass. Mos. in their apocrypha.

- According to the Orthodox Theologian Theordore Stylianopoulos, the Bible itself is not revelation, but merely the record of revelation. I think Daniel Fuller and perhaps even G.E. Ladd held to something similar, but I would need to confirm that.

- You get a lot more Scripture read in an OC church service than you do in most Evangelical churches.

It is an interesting book with a fairly balanced intro to the OC.

Justification Debates at ETS

Over at CT, ETS acting president Hassell Bullock of Wheaton College is interviewed on what to expect at the forthcoming ETS meeting. Included is a question on renewed debates about justification:

What do you hope will come of renewed debates about the doctrine of justification?

"I believe there is a need for discussing the basic doctrines of our faith over and over again, not with the intent of discovering a new doctrine, but discovering new dimensions of old doctrines. Since the doctrine of justification was the "watchword" of the Reformation, and thus the one doctrine, perhaps above all others, by which Protestantism distinguishes itself from its Catholic and Orthodox communions, it is only wise that we should talk about it and try to understand why our understanding distinguishes us from other Christian brothers and sisters. In so doing, I hope we shall come to a better understanding of the theological dilemma we have and do face, and find that behind the doctrine of justification stands our common Lord. From my point of view, this is not likely to erase the reformers' understanding of justification, but hopefully will bring us to a better understanding of each other, and that can only be a touch of God's grace."

I thinks this is good advice! I do not see any need to abandon the essential architecture of justification as bequeathed to us from the Reformers, however, we have to recognize that the Jew-Gentile issue has alot to do with the content and context of Paul's debates about justification. Thus, covenant membership is at the very least a consequent of being justified by faith.

On another matter, Bullock is asked:

Is there any merit to suggestions for changing the ETS doctrinal basis?
"The recent return of Francis Beckwith, the ETS president, to the Catholic faith of his childhood, has obviously and understandably created questions within the society about the adequacy of our theological basis, which is quite brief: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory." The society was founded upon a simple theological basis rather than a statement of faith, with the intention of providing a broad evangelical basis for academic discussion, thus allowing and encouraging diversity within unity. While the proposed amendment will not change that basis, it will expand the statement quite significantly, and, while solving one problem, may create others.
However the society decides this issue, I hope ETS will continue to see itself as a wide space for discussing biblical-theological and related issues within the bounds of an unshakable commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture."

My own view is that a doctrinal statement of Inerrancy and Trinity is inadequate for defining both the boundaries and breadth of the society. I agree with Denny Burke and Ray Van Neste that we should adopt the UCCF, but I would also prefer that the UCCF statement be adopted as it currently is with no additions or revisions.

Mark's Christology

How is this for a statement:

Mark’s story of Jesus essentially unpacks the designation ‘Jesus Christ’ from the incipit so as to show that the Messiah that Christians confess is made known as the:

-The Son of God who is beloved by the Father, commissioned for his messianic mission by reception of the Spirit, and exercises command over God’s enemies be they demons or the armies of Rome.
-The Son of Man who is authorized to speak for God, appointed to suffer and rise from the dead, and to judge the inhabited world.
-The Son of David who heals the afflicted of Israel and is greater still than David himself.
- The King of the Jews who, in an ironic twist, at the end of his triumphus is enthroned as the King of Israel on the cross and there reveals the true power of his kingship by refusing to save himself by saving others instead.

SJT Lecture

Some of you might be interested to know that Bruce L. McCormack of PTS will be delivering the Scottish Journal of Theology Lectures at St Andrews University the week of December 3-6, 2007. His lectureship is titled 'The Eternity of the Eternal Son: A Reformed Version of Kenotic Christianity', and will include four lectures.

What is Typology?

One thing I find that I have to explain to my students if the difference between prophecy and typology, esp. in relation to the OT quotes in Matthew 1-4.

According to Michael Fishbane, typology "sees in persons, events, or places, the prototype, pattern, or figure of historical persons, events or places that follow it in time" (Biblical Interpretation and Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985], 350).

The difference between typology and allegory is, according to Anthony Thiselton (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 730): "The major difference between type and allegory is that the former is grounded in history and the presupposes corresponding events; the latter is ground in a linguistic system of signs or semiotic codes and presupposes resonances or prallels between ideas or semiotic meanings".

See for an overview W. Edward Glenny, "Typology: A summary of the present evangelical discussion," JETS (1997).

Latest Tyndale Bulletin

Tyndale Bulletin 58.2 (2007) is out and includes:

Gerald A. Klingbeil and Martin G. Klingbeil
The Prophetic Voice of Amos as a Paradigm for Christians in the Public Square

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer
The Compassionate God of Traditional Jewish and Christian Exegesis

William Varner
A Discourse Analysis of Matthew's Nativity Narrative

Peter Ensor
The Glorification of the Son of Man: An Analysis of John 13:31-32

James M. Hamilton
The Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham

David H. Wenkel
The 'Breastplate of Righteousness' in Ephesians 6:14: Imputation or Virtue?

Harold G. Cunningham
God's Law, 'General Equity' and the Westminster Confession of Faith

Stephen E. Witmer
Taught by God: Divine Instruction in Early Christianity

Lee S. Bond
Renewing the Mind: The Role of Cognition Language in Pauline Theology and Ethics

Latest Issues of JETS

The latest issue of JETS 50.3 (2007) includes:

Sydney H. T. Page
Satan: God's Servant

Michael Graves
The Public Reading of Scripture in Early Judaism

Clyde E. Billington
Goliath and the Exodus Giants: How Tall Were they?

J. Daniel Hays
The Height of Goliath: A Response to Clyde Billington

Lee M. Fields
Proverts 11:30: Soul-Winning or Wise Liviing?

Herbert W. Bateman IV
Defining the Titles "Christ" and "Son of God" in Mark's Narrative Presentation of Jesus

Michael J. Thate

Conditionality of Jonn's Gospel: A Critique and Examination of Time and Reality as Classically Conceived in Conditional Constructions

Steven R. Tracy
Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: Challenging Common Misconceptions

A Prayer for the Ordering of Pastors

From the Book of Common Prayer, this is something that I think should be read at ordination ceremonies:

Come, Holy Ghost, our souls inspire,
And lighten with celestial fire.
Thou the anointing Spirit art,
Who dost thy seven-fold gifts impart.

Thy blessed Unction from above,
Is comfort, life, and fire of love.
Enable with perpetual light
The dulness of our blinded sight.

Teach us to know the Father, Son,
And thee, of both, to be but One.
That, through the ages all along,
This may be our endless song;

Praise to thy eternal merit,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Don Garlington responds to Phil Ryken

Below is a post from Don Garlington who responds to an article by Phil Ryken. My own response is located here.

A Brief Response to Philip Ryken
Don Garlington

Although a number of issues arising from Philip Ryken’s article Justification and Union with Christ. could be addressed in detail, I will confine my remarks to the following.

According to Ryken, the thrust of my response to John Piper’s Counted Righteous in Christ (“Imputation or Union with Christ? A Response to John Piper,” Reformation and Revival Journal, 12, No. 4 [2003], 45-112) is that we “must choose one doctrine or the other in articulating the theology of salvation” (italics added). This, however, fails to take account of the introduction and conclusions of that response. In the former, what I said was this:

It must be clarified from the outset that this response to Piper’s book represents a kind of “mediating” position. Not that the purpose is to bridge a gap simply for the sake of being a “peacemaker,” but rather that the baby is not to be thrown out with the bath water. That is to say, the intention of the doctrine of imputation is not to be disputed: our righteousness comes from Christ and is for that reason an “alien righteousness.” However, it is a question of modality…. It is the contention of this paper that the free gift of righteousness comes our way by virtue of union with Christ, not imputation as classically defined (pp. 45-46).

In the latter, I wrote:

In closing, it must be placed beyond all doubt that imputation as a concept is hardly objectionable: what evangelical could, at least with any degree of consistency, protest the notion that Christ has become our righteousness in the gospel? But as pertains to a strict doctrine of imputation, exegesis of texts must be the deciding factor. It has been the contention of this paper that exegesis will steer us away from imputation to union with Christ (p. 101).

True enough, I see lots of evidence for union with Christ and none for imputation. Nevertheless, the choice is as not as stark as Ryken would have us believe. My position is somewhere between that of Piper and Robert Gundry. Consequently, as I actually stated, the baby is not to be thrown out with the bath water, and imputation as a concept is hardly objectionable. No reader of my essay was forced to choose one or the other as far as the practical consequences are concerned. That is to say, Christ and Christ alone is the source of our righteousness, by whatever modality it comes.

To take matters a step further, my principal problem with Piper is not imputation as such, but two other factors. For one, there is Piper’s attack on a salvation-historical hermeneutic. Those who embrace such a “new paradigm,” as Piper dubs it, are consigned to the company of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians­, who, as Paul himself exclaims, are the agents of Satan disguising themselves as angels of light! As much as anything else, it is this breathtaking condemnation of other Christians that evoked my reply. For another, there is Piper’s emphatic denial that justification entails liberation from sin. It is certainly ironic that Reformed exegetes of the likes of John Murray do affirm that justification is “from sin” (Acts 13:39; Rom 6:7) in the sense that Paul intends the phrase, i.e., liberation from sin’s dominance (Rom 6:18). Among other things, that is the function of justification. Such, I think, is a larger issue than imputation as a theological category.

Since Ryken has chosen to subsume my views, along with those of Michael Bird and N. T. Wright, under the heading of “Current Distortions of Biblical Justification,” I would submit that the contemporary justification debate has been tarnished precisely by a distortion of the theology of those of us who differ with Ryken, Piper and others. A glaring example is Ryken’s partial and out-of-context quotation from my conclusions: “Garlington intends to offer an exegesis that will ‘steer us away from imputation to union with Christ’.” This is but the final sentence of a paragraph that maintains that imputation as a concept is hardly objectionable, because Christ has become our righteousness in the gospel! I would hope for better things in days to come.

Martin Hengel on the Origins of Christology

‘The comparison of the three hymns in the Johannine Prologue, the Letter to the Hebrews and the Letter to the Philippians shows, first of all, that christological thinking between 50 and 100 C.E. was much more unified in its basic structure than New Testament research, in part at least, has maintained. Basically, the later developments are already there in a nutshell in the Philippian hymn. This means, however, with regard to the development of all the early Church’s christology, that more happened in the first twenty years than in the entire later centuries-long development of dogma.'
Martin Hengel, ‘Christological Titles in Early Christianity,’ in The Messiah, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), p. 443.

The First Liberal Theology: Docetism

"The blood of Christ was still fresh in Judaea when His body was said to be a phantasm"

Ignatius of Antioch

I used to think that "Liberals" were out to destroy or deliberately pervert Christianity. I have learned, to the contrary, that they are in fact trying to save it by making its beliefs and doctrines more amicable to the Spirit of the Age (I have my own views about whether that is desirable or even possible). The first liberals in that regards were docetists. They had to confront the problem of how could a great teacher sent from heaven and now enthroned in heaven possibly suffer (let alone exist) in human form. For instance consider this quote from Ovid (Fasti 3.701f):

I was about to neglect those daggers that pierced
Our leader, when Vesta spoke from her pure hearth:
Don’t hesitate to recall them: he was my priest,
And those sacrilegious hands sought me with their blades.
I snatched him away, and left a naked semblance:
What died by the steel, was Caesar’s shadow.’
Raised to the heavens he found Jupiter’s halls,
And his is the temple in the mighty Forum.
But all the daring criminals who in defiance
Of the gods, defiled the high priest’s head,
Have fallen in merited death. Philippi is witness,
And those whose scattered bones whiten its earth.
This work, this duty, was Augustus’ first task,
Avenging his father by the just use of arms.

This is about the apotheosis of Julius Caesar who became a god and was taken away by Vesta just before his attackers set upon him, leaving only a vague naked image or a shadow to be murdured by his assassin's daggers. What else would the gods do for one who was so great and now set among them?

You can understand then the context in which docetism emerged. It was out of a desire to venerate Jesus and to accentuate his greatness in terms that were readily acceptable to persons in the Graeco-Roman world. It witnesses to the acculturation of christology.

Being a 'Jew' or a 'Judean'

Among the on-going debate (see here from Phil Harland) as to whether or not Ioudaioi should be translated as "Jew" or "Judean", is one piece of evidence mostly overlooked from Epictetus:

‘Why, then do you call yourself a Stoic, why do you deceive the multitude, why do you act the part of a Jew, when you are a Greek? Do you not see in what sense men are severally called Jew, Sirian, or Egyptian? For example, whenever we see a man halting between two faiths, we are in the habit of saying, “he is not a Jew, he is only acting the part”. But when he adopts the attitude of mind of the man who has been baptized and made his choice, then he both is a Jew in fact and is also called one’ (Epictetus. Diss. 2.9.19-20, trans. W.A. Oldfather, LCL).

I have to ask does being a "Jew" here refer to belonging to the geography or ethnography of Judea? I don't think so. So I still find reason to think that, at some points at least, Ioudaioi can be broader than Judean. In Epictetus is seems highly religious and even related to a certain praxis.

Wellhausen on Jesus as a Jew

J. Wellhausen's dictum is well-known: ‘Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew’. What is a little less known is that he also said a few paragraphs later: ‘one may be justified in maintaining that what is un-Jewish in him, what is human, is more characteristic than what is Jewish’.

J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (1911), pp. 102-3.

This calls to my mind something that Ernst Käsemann said in a radio broadcast where he said about human beings that "each man has become his own Jew". Yet ironically, being a Jew inwardly is regarded as being a good thing by Paul in Rom. 2.25-29.

William Lane Craig on Dale C. Allison "Resurrecting Jesus"

Over at Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig offer's a good critique of elements of Dale C. Allison's book Resurrecting Jesus.

Does anyone know of a site where the Craig vs. Crossley debate is available?

Christology of 1 John

Another good quote from Martin Hengel:

'The first letter of John, which takes the intentions of the Gospel further, defines this precisely: “Whoever does not love does not know God; for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might love through him (4.8ff). This means that in the Son who has become human, God’s love, his very nature, has become manifest for humankind; God himself comes to them. The incarnation of the love of God, not the deification of Christ, is the main theme of Johannine theology.'

Martin Hengel, ‘Christological Titles in Early Christianity,’ in The Messiah, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), p. 432.

Michael Gorman's New Book

A book worth putting on your list at ETS/SBL is:

Reading Paul

by Michael J. Gorman

“This splendid introduction to the Apostle Paul is the best book of its kind. . . . [It is] thoroughly clear and readable. . . . I will assign this as required reading for students in my introductory New Testament course and put it in the hands of as many pastors and laypeople as possible.”

—Richard B. Hays, The Divinity School, Duke University

“As someone who has gotten to know Paul by deeply immersing himself in Paul’s writings for many years, Michael can be the mutual friend who orients you and helps you relax in the presence of a truly awe-inspiring person.”

—Brian McLaren, author of A Generous Orthodoxy

• Read Complete Description and Endorsements

• Read Excerpts (includes Table of Contents)

• Request Review or Exam Copy

Gorman's other book Apostle of the Crucified Lord is excellent and I've used it in study and in class several times. Gorman is a great author, if only he could be persuaded to write a short commentary on Galatians!!!

Story of Ernst Lohmeyer

Over at the IVP blog, there is an excellent account of the life of the German NT scholar Ernst Lohmeyer. I think I have read portions of Das Evangelium des Markus (on Mk. 13.10 and 14.9 from memory). It was my first introduction to German written in Gothic script (now that's hard going). Anyway, it's a wonderful story of his opposition to the Nazi's and his death at the hands of the Soviet Union. Lohmeyer was later exonerated and there is now a house in Greifswald named in his honour

Praise God for Fundamentalists?

John Piper posts a response to a Fundamentalist resolution on his ministry. I commend John for being gracious in his response. I hope this leads Fundamentalists to start reading or to keep reading Piper's books, his sermons, and attend his conferences. But I cannot praise God for them. Here's why:

1. Shall we praise God for their legalistic approach to the faith which (for example) makes one's views of alcohol a basis for fellowship and discipline (I was raised in a house with alchol abuse so don't anyone even think about getting up on their high horse and lecturing me about alcholism and its effects)? [Note: Piper has an excellent sermon on this topic in DG archives].

2. Shall we praise God for the racism of some Fundamentalists who believe in racial segregation and prohibit inter-racial marraiges and so deny the great Reformed doctrine of justification by faith where God vindicates Jews and Gentiles from sin and calls them into one fellowship and into one family of faith?

3. Shall we praise God for the KJV-only crowd among Fundamentalists whose views are based on a mixture of historical ignorance and cultural arrogance?

4. Shall we praise God for Landmarkers whose views are based on doctrinal innovation and historical revisionism and pervert the sacrament of God?

5. Shall we praise God for the eschatology of some Fundamentalists and how they support the state sponsored persecution of our Arab Christian brothers and sisters in the Holy Land in the name of their esoteric reading of Revelation? [Note: I am told that 1 Kings 21 about Naboth's Vineyard is the most frequently preached text in Palestinian Christian churches!!!]

6. Shall we praise God for their separation (sometimes even two degrees of separation) from those who maintain a biblical and orthodox faith over secondary matters and so destroy the unity of the body of Christ?

Short answer: Not on my watch! These things I'm ranting about aren't just little quirks we can shrug off and roll our eyes about, it is really bad stuff. We need to protect the flock from this stuff.

As a shepherd of my students and as a servant in my church, I have to guard against serious errors and aberrations of the faith from both the left and the right. Now I can tolerate people more moderate than I am and I can tolerate people more conservative than I am. But there are extremists of the left and the right who are not playing with a full theological deck. Less I seem too harsh, I have met Fundamentalists, I have heard them preach, and I have seen what they do to people, churches, and families. It is slavery to the traditions of men and it is captivity to a certain culture. My Bible says that "For freedom Christ has set us free" and we are free from such slavery.

A qualification. Not all Fundamentalists are KJV-only, Landmarker, pro-segregationists. Many are just highly conservative individuals who grew up in a certain religious tradition. Some are more "liberal" on separation than others. Neither are they devoid of love or compassion, let it be known that I never said that. But on the whole, the ethos and dynamics of the movement, as well as its distinctive beliefs, can be a very dangerous threat to the fabric of the gospel and the mission of the church. We should guard the good deposit of the gospel against errors, from both liberals and fundamentalists.

HT: Andy Naselli

The End of an Era

If my memory serves me right, as of 01 Nov 2007, Prof. Richard Bauckham officially retires from St. Andrews University. This is a huge loss for St. Andrews and Scotland since Richard is retiring to Cambridge where he'll undertake some part-time teaching in one of the theological colleges down there and also engage in more sustained research and writing. Given Richard's poor health a few years ago, this is probably the best thing for him. It also means that Richard can now finish some major projects he's got on the horizon including:

John commentary in the Two Horizons series.

John commentary in the NIGTC series.

Two volumes on Monotheism and Christology.

Luke commentary for the ICC series.

So happy retirement to Richard, and many productive and blessed years be ahead of you.

Though with Richard's departure I have to face up to a monumental problem since it means that I am now officially the shortest NT scholar in Scotland (woe is me!).

(Wait a minute! How tall is Dr. Alison Jack of Edinburgh Uni? Could someone measure her to see if she's taller than 168 cm? Maybe I'm not the shortest after all?)

Bird on Imputation (Once Again!)

Over at Reformation 21, Philip Ryken has an article on Justification and Union with Christ. During the course of discussion I get a mention under the heading "Current Distortions of Biblical Justification" as an example of one (along with N.T. Wright, Bob Gundry, and Don Garlington) who rejects imputation in favour of union with Christ. Sigh! I have been here before and I am loathe to enter into it further. But since my good name is at stake I offer a slight qualification.

1. My point is that in terms of exegetical content, no single verse establishes the confessional formula that Jesus' active obedience is imputed to me while my sins are imputed to Jesus. Some verses come very close, some verses say part of this, but no single text gives us all of it. Most texts speak of believers being justified through union with Christ (e.g. Gal. 2.17; 2 Cor. 5.21, Rom. 8.1, etc) and I have termed this "incorporated righteousness". In many cases what is spoken of is believers participating in the vindication of Christ as achieved in his resurrection (e.g. Rom. 4.25; 1 Tim. 3.16). I'm glad to say that I am in good company with Mark Seifrid and Richard Gaffin being very close to this and Brian Vickers is probably not far off either.

2. What I am objecting to is what Ryken says here: "The biblical terminology for imputation—chiefly the verb logizomai, “to count” or “to reckon”—is only used in some of these passages (which are briefly considered here, giving only the broad outlines of a full exegesis). However, the concept of imputation is logically present in all of them. In each case God declares sinners to be what they are not in themselves, namely, righteous in his sight. In other words, God justifies them. He does this on the basis of the saving work of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to them by faith". I wouldn't reject all of this, but the content in bold sounds like special pleading. This sounds to me a bit like saying: "Well some texts don't actually mention imputation, but of course we know from the confessions that that is what they mean". But in Philippians 3.9 the preposition ek is not a synonym for logizomai. In 2 Corinthians 5.21 ginomai/poieo is not a synonym for logizomai either! These texts do not deny imputation, they are consistent with imputation, but they are not saying that Jesus' active righteousness is imputed to believers. As an exegete, I cannot and will not call an Egg an Ostrich in order to keep my Reformed Club Card.

3. Lo and Behold, I actually do believe in imputation (shock, cry, gasp)! The question is how do you get there? Well, you can either argue that the usual proof texts really do teach imputation and everyone who denies it is a Wrightophile who has gone off the edge (this is my own caricature and nothing to do with Ryken's article). Or you get your methodology (w)right and shift from exegesis, to biblical theology, to systematic theology. Exegetically I think that "incorporated righteousness" is a good description of what is happening at the exegetical level in these verses (see Timo Laato's essay in JVN vol. II for something similar). If we ask, "how does union with Christ or incorporation into Christ justify?" then I think something along the lines of imputation is required or even necessitated. If we take the forensic nature of justification, the representative nature of Adam and Christ, the language of "reckoning", the idea of righteousness as an explicit "gift" then the only way to hold it all together is with a theology of imputation. So imputation is a coherent and legitimate way of explicating the biblical materials in the domain of systematic theology; but we do violent damage to the text if we try to read each text as proving this systematic formulation. Let the text say what it says, nothing more and nothing less.

4. I think Mark Seifrid hit the nail on the head in his 1992 dissertation when he said that alot of these debates are between those who want to read the Bible historically, and those who want to read the Bible theologically. Truth be told, I want to do both, but I'm finding that Systematic Theologians do not want to allow the Bible to be read with any sense of historical contingency or allow meaning to be determined by reading the Bible alongside other ancient writings (ANE or second-temple Judaism). That just won't do!

So in sum, I am not trying to play off imputation against union with Christ. My concern is to differentiate between exegetical and doctrinal formulations and not to confuse the two (because they often are confused!). I am convinced that, understood in that sense, Ryken might even be sympathetic to my viewpoint. For those interested in what I do say on justification/imputation see my Saving Righteousness of God and (for a simpler and less technical exposition) A Bird's Eye View of Paul (out early next year).

Book Buying List for ETS-SBL

This year my shopping list for SBL is:

Charles H. Talbert - Ephesians and Colossians (Paideia).

D.A. Carson & Greg Beale - Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

M. Eugene Boring - Mark (NTL)

A.Y. Collins - Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia)

Jacob Myers - 1 & 2 Esdras (AB)

Erkki Koskenniemi - The Exposure of Infants among Jews and Christians in Antiquity

Any one of these books would make a great birthday present for someone (with red hair and from Australia) who just happens to be celebrating their birthday at SBL (18 Nov 07).

Two Recent Articles at CT

Over at Christianity Today there is an article on Taking Revival to the World about Australia's largest church, Hillsong (AOG). This church is somewhere between a denomination and an empire. It has off-shoots across the world esp. in London. It produces some funky worship music ('Shout to the Lord' is a classic), Hillsong does some good work with the poor and underprivileged in Sydney, they run a big annual conference, and politicians of all stripes court the favour of the church (all the more significant since in Australia the church is normally a political non-entity in Australia, so the fact that this church has captured political attention means it now captures media attention and secular fundamentalists complain that this is a sign that we are turning into a GWBush theocracy). But Hillsong is not exactly known for its wonderful Bible exposition and their prosperity gospel is about as edifying as a Hillary Clinton pro-abortion speech. For American readers, Hillsong is perhaps understood as a cross between Crocodile Dundee and Joel Osteen. I know some lovely Christian people who have come from Hillsong and their music is somewhere between inspiring and wish-washy depending on the song. The article by Cassandra Zinchini is worth reading.

The other CT article, The Crisis of Modern Fundamentalism by Collin Hansen. AllI can say is that if you think that John Piper is a dubious or dangerous character then your theology is about as messed up as can be imagined. I find it ironic that Fundamentalist leaders are crying foul that many of its ranks are joining evangelicalism (perish the thought) and yet some evangelical leaders are urging their peers and people for the need to return to Fundamentalism (go figure). As an external observer, American Fundamentalism is not really a return to the Bible as much as it is an indigenized American religion with roots in revivalism, it is a philosophical response to the Enlightenment and a political response to secularism, it is a culturally contingent form of Christianity that owes its beliefs and tenets just as much to its own cultural environment as to the Bible, and its has its own doctrines that cannot be derived from anything near Scripture. The separatist and sectarian ethos of Fundamentalism means that it has more in common with Qumran than with Jesus, Paul, Luke, and John. Let me add these caveats: I am not using the word 'American' for all things bad with religion and Fundamentalism has rightly tried to resist assimilation with a post-Christian culture, and they did it well. I want to affirm the fundamentals of the faith and stand in the tradition of historic orthodoxy and the Rule of Faith. But I'd rather be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and paraded around Tenessee Temple University while wearing a sign saying "I am Bill Clinton's love child, so make me governor of Tenessee" before I became a Fundamentalist. I have no great love for liberalism, and I know that my own brand of evangelicalism ain't perfect either, but I'm concerned and confused as to why some leaders are telling us to be more like Fundamentalism. Rather they should be telling evangelicals to be truly evangelical in their worldview, ethos, politics, and theology.

Son of Man as Messiah?

‘We professors have been taught and have taught that “the Son of Man” is a term or title that is to be distinguished from the term or title Messiah. Now, with the recognition that the Parables of Enoch are clearly Jewish, Palestinian, and probably pre-70, we should re-think this assumption.’

James H. Charlesworth, ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.’ In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992., p. 31.

Pre-Christian Messianic Interpretation of Daniel 7

That Daniel 7.9-14 was interpreted messianically is evident from 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra. However, both of these documents (in their final form) clearly post-date 70 A.D. Is there any evidence for a pre-Christian messianic reading of Daniel 7? There probably is in the "Son of God" text from Qumran, 4Q246 2.1-10! The text reads:

"He will be called the Son of God, they will call him the son of the Most High. But like the meteors that you saw in your vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign only a few years over the land, while people trample people and nation trample nation until the people of God arise; then all will have rest from warfare. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all their paths will be righteous. They will judge the land justly, and all nations will make peace. Warfare will cease from teh land, and all the nations shall do obeisance to them. The great God will be their help. He Himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power, overthrowing them all before them. God's rule will be an eternal rule and all the depth of [the earth are His]. (Trans. Wise, Abegg, Cook)".

Is this "Son of God" a self-divinized king like Antiochus Epiphanes IV, Israel, an angelic figure, or a Jewish monarch? What is interesting is that John Collins (Sceptre and the Star, pp. 163-69) opts for a messianic meaning and he says the text as indebted heavily to Daniel 7. He notes the points of comparison: (1) 2.5 with "its kingdom is an everlasting kingdom" = Dan. 3.33; 7.27; and (2) 2.9 with "his sovereignty will be an everlasting sovereignty" = Dan. 4:31; 7:14. In addition, there is, like Daniel 7, an intimate relationship between the Son of God figure and the people of God. The Son of God figure is followed by reference to transient human kingdoms and the conflict between peoples which is once more reminiscient of Daniel 7. Other texts in Qumran also given "Son" or "Son of God" a messianic meaning, e.g. 4Q174, 4Q252. Collins concludes: "The Son of God text suggests that the messianic interpretation of Daniel 7 had begun already in the Hasmonean period" (p. 167).

Rudolf Bultmann Evaluated

Sean Winter writes:

"I have read enough Bultmann to agree with John Ashton's brilliant summary: '...yet over them all Rudolf Bultmann, unmatched in learning, breadth and understanding, towers like a colossus. Nevertheless, in spite of his pre-eminence, every answer that Bultmann gives to the really important questions he raises - is wrong ... if one were to try and distil the essence of Bultmann's achievement into a single word ... the best word, I think, would be penetration - the peculiar ability to see John clearly and to see him whole.' (Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 45)."

There is no doubting Bultmann's mastery of ancient sources, his pastoral concern for the human condition, his penetrating analysis of source and theological issues, but I still think he's so overrated. What I really don't like, well:

• I find his existential Deism nauseating.
• There is more to Romans than a diatribe.
• His History of the Synoptic Tradition asserted more than it argued and is methodologically defunct.
• There never was a Gnostic Redeemer myth nor was there ever any proof for it in the first place.
• He was wrong to cordon off Christianity into Palestinian, Hellenistic, and Gentile varieties.
• His depiction of Judaism as pure legalism is both inaccurate and has had horrendous effects in Pauline studies.
• His best book A Theology of the New Testament gives us 30 pages about Jesus and 120 about a fictitious Hellenistic Community.

Let me say that I do however like Bultmann's TDNT articles and he found a way to momentarily stop liberal protestants from becoming atheists and post-Christian secularists. In terms of twentieth-century Germans, give me Zahn, Schlatter, Pannenberg, Stuhlmacher, and Hengel any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I dedicate this post to my good friend Jim West!

Rising Stars in NT Studies

In my journeys and readings I have come across several younger scholars (i.e. still in their 30s) that I believe will make significant contributions to NT studies in the near future. I have already learned much from them and they will be one's watch and one's to read in times ahead.

C. Kavin Rowe is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Duke University. His Ph.D thesis Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke is published by Walter de Gruyter and Kavin has written some excellent articles in the field of Luke-Acts.

Simon Gathercole is Lecturer in New Testament Studies and Fellow, Fitzwilliam College at Cambridge University having moved there recently from Aberdeen University (for such betrayal he will be forced to watch re-runs of the soap opera "Neighbours" for 10 000 years in purgatory). Simon epitomizes the "generalist" scholar and he has written in several areas across biblical studies including Pauline soteriology, christology of the Synoptic Gospels, Tobit, the Gospels of Judas and Thomas, and he even ventures into Systematic Theology on occasions.

Andrew Gregory is an Anglican priest and Chaplain and Fellow of University College, Oxford, and a member of the Theology faculty at the University of Oxford. He has written on the reception history of Luke-Acts, the Four Gospels, edited works on the Apostolic Fathers, and he is currently working on the Jewish Christian Gospels. Even better yet, Andrew has red hair!

Paul Foster is Senior Lecturer in New Testament at New College in Edinburgh. He is a prolific author and has covered areas as diverse as the Gospel of Matthew, the Synoptic Problem and Q, the Gospel of Peter, Justin Martyr, and the Apostolic Fathers.

Timothy Gombis is Assistant Professor of Bible at Cedarville University. He has previously published articles in Westminster Theological Journal, Novum Testamentum, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Tyndale Bulletin, and Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society. He has done some good stuff on Paul and Ephesians.

J. Ross Wagner is Associate Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He has written some excellent studies on intertextuality including Isaiah and Paul and also on Psalm 19 and early Christianity.

No doubt others could be named, and I am sure that there are some very good female scholars out there as well, I am limited to my circles of travel and reading.

Latest BBR

The latest issue of Bulletin for Biblical Research includes:

Preston M. Sprinkle

The Use of Genesis 42:18 (not Leviticus 18:5) in Luke 10:28: Joseph and the Good Samartian.

David L. Baker

Finders Keepers? Lost Property in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law.

Elmer A. Martens

Impulses to Mission in Isaiah: An Intertextual Exploration

Robert E. Picirilli

Time and Order in the Circumstantial Participles of Mark and Luke

Stanley E. Porter

Time and Order in the Circumstantial Participles of Mark and Luke: A Response to Robert Picirilli

Aida Besancon Spencer

The Denial of the Good News and the Ending of Mark

Robert H. Gundry

New Wine in Old Wineskins: Bursting Tradition Interpretations of John's Gospel (Part Two).

Timothy Wiarda

What God Knows When the Spirit Intercedes.

Victor A. Copan

Mathetes and Mimetes: Exploring an Etangled relationship.

Frank Thielman

Setting the Record Straight: Robert W. Yarbrough's Reassessment of the Discipline of New Testament Theology

"Textual Criticism and Theology"

Over at Evangelical Textual Criticism, I've posted a summary of and interaction with David Parker's recent article on "Textual Criticism and Theology" from the Expository Times.

Howard Marshall: Aspects of Atonement

I've just finished reading through Howard Marshall's new book Aspects of Atonement. The main strength of this book is not in some wild and outrageously new intepretation of Jesus' death, rather, its strenght lies in the common sensical and straight forward argumentations that typifies Marshall's approach. Marshall engages a topic that is heated, disputed, prone to misunderstandings of the text, and prone to misrepresentations about what recent interpreters think the text says. To cut a long story short, Marshall believes in penal substitution, but he also shows how the death of Jesus must be understood in categories wider than penal substitution.

Chapter one: The Penalty of Sin

Marshall here sets out the debate about penal substitution and offers a discussion about biblical metaphors and he offers several "basic affirmations" including:

1. We are saved from the consequences of our sin by the grace of God and not by anything that we ourselves can do.
2. In the death of Jesus, the Father and the Son are acting together in love, so that there is no question that the Son was acting to persuade an otherwise unwilling Father to forgive; the source of the atonement lies in the gracious agreement of Father and Son.
3. The decisive element in our salvation is the death of Jesus, or rather, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
4. This death is the death of one who is, at one and the same time, the Son of God and the sinless human being, the second Adam.
5. It follows that the incarnation was an essential condition of that saving action.
6. The salvation secured by the death and resurrection of Jesus becomes effective through the work of the Holy Spirit and through the faith of the recipient.
7. The main results of the atonement are, negatively, to deliver us from the guilt and power of sin and, positively, to restore us to a right relationship with God with all that that involves (pp. 9-10).

Chapter two: The Substitutionary Death of Jesus

Here Marshall discusses the holiness and wrath of God (with a good discussion of P.T. Forsyth) and how it relates to various metaphors for atonement: sacrifice, curse, redemption/ransom, reconciliation, forgiveness. Marshall also deals with the view that penal substitution implies a violent and angry God. In an extended footnote he takes Joel Green and Mark Baker to task on the grounds that: (1) Their book ignores or caricatures the NT teaching on wrath and judgment; (2) The sacrificial languge of the NT is largely set aside and its implications ignored. I like Marshall's quote about Gal. 3.13: "Jesus bears the curse of God on our behalf. If that is not penal substitution I do not know what it is". Marshall does note though that one aspect that does count in Green and Baker's favour is Acts where "Salvation is understood as status-reversal, but what makes the status-reversal possible is not disucssed" (pp.53-54). On the allegation of divine child abuse he says: "There is an indissoluble unity between Father, Son, and Spirit in the work of redemption. The recognition that it is God the Son, that is to say quite simply God, who suffers and dies on the cross, settles the question finally. This is God himself bearing the consequences of sin, not the abuse of some cosmic child" (p. 56). Marshall does however think that what some Evangelicals say about Jesus' death (e.g. Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 575) assert an unbiblical position that God was angry with his Son, but this is a clear minority position (p.63). He regards Rom. 3.25 as teaching both expiation and propitiation or when sin is cancelled God's wrath is appeased (p. 42). Against those who link penal substitution to limited atonement (e.g. Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for our Transgression), Marshall says: "Those of us who were brought up on Hammond, T.C. In Understanding be Men were forewarned against that misapprehension. The doctrine of penal substitution is not part of package which also contains as essential the concepts of particular election and limited (or definite) atonement" (p. 63). In the end, Marshall prefers the term: "substitutionary suffering and death" (pp. 65-66).

Chapter three: Raised for our Justification

This was a chapter near and dear to my heart. Marshall shows how atonement, forgiveness, and justification are indebted to BOTH the cross of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. Sad to say, I have not yet convinced Marshall that 1 Tim. 3.16 refers to "justification" as opposed to "vindication".

Chapter four: Reconciliation: Its Centrality and Relevance

Marshall proposes that reconciliation is the central concept underlying the biblical teaching on atonement (somewhat reminiscient of R.P. Martin). He concludes with these words: "I would claim, then, that our enquiry has demonstrated that reconciliation is a model that expresses clearly the basic pattern of human need, God's action, and the resultant new situation that shapes all the biblical imagery of salvation, and that it does so in a way that is particularly comprehensive and is especially relevant in a world where the need for new relationships between human beings is so clamant" (p. 132).

All in all this is a good little book and one for all young students and pastors should read. This is classic Marshall (not bad for an Arminian!) and welcome successor to his earlier book, Jesus the Saviour.

Undergraduate Research?

Do you think undergrads can do research? Do you promote research among undergrads with whom you work? Do those of us whose job is primarily among undergrads by definition miss out on supervising and promoting research projects among students? Are there limitations with undergrads that prohibit research on the New Testament and Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity?

Perhaps you are like me and believe that while there are clearly limitations at the undergraduate level on the depth of research, it is possible and commendable to supervise and promote research among undergrads. I would like to know if you are supervising research with undergrads and what lessons you have learned in the process. What are the limitations you have discovered?

I am working on a Research Assistant Program in corrdination with our university which is beginning to encourage (provide financing in other words) for undergraduate research. Here is a draft description of the program I am seeking to establish.

Research Assistant Program

Professor Joel Willitts, Ph.D.
Biblical and Theological Studies
North Park University

Rationale
Learning is best done in community and for this reason students and professors benefit from pursuing academics in relationship. An undergraduate setting is an ideal time for students with interests in graduate work in biblical studies to begin developing skills in the basics of research method and critical thinking. Strong graduate programs in biblical studies are highly competitive and demand increasingly better preparation at the undergraduate level. What is most needed for an exceptionally prepared application to graduate school is (1) a developing research facility and evidence of critical thinking sometimes evinced in a piece of written work and (2) a strong academic recommendation. In addition, professors in undergraduate settings like NPU have significant course loads and the ability to continue working on research projects becomes acutely challenging. A research assistant program, then, can be an effective tool for both student development and professorial research.

Description
The student will assist in research projects and the more general academic responsibilities of the professor as well as be responsible to conduct individual research on a topic in the area of the New Testament or Second Temple Judaism.

Student Responsibilities
1. Student will have taken one year of Greek.

2. Student will purchase the following books:

• Booth, Wayne, Gregory G. Colomb and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research, 2nd ed.(University of Chicago Press: Chicago) 2003 (ISBN: 0226065685)
• Turabian, Kate L, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 6th ed. University of Chicago Press: Chicago) 1996 (ISBN: 0226816273)

3. Student will work between 5 and 10 hours a week. This may vary significantly from week to week but the balance of personal research and assisting the professor will demand time.
4. Student will assist the professor in research and writing projects in whatever capacity is needed. Professor will seek to match gift and skill sets to particular tasks.
5. Student will assist the professor in academic administrative duties, e.g. data entry.
6. Student will present their research at an academic meeting, e.g. University Symposium and/or ETS/SBL regional meeting

4Q521 and Lk. 7.22-23 - Evidence for A Messianic Jesus?

Does 4Q521 teach that certain mighty-deeds will be performed by the Messiah and how does these relate to Lk. 7.22-23/Mt. 11.3-6 (= Q 7.22-23)?

4Q521

[The hea]vens and the earth will obey His Messaih [... and all that]at is in them. He will not turn aside from teh commandments of the holy ones. Take strength in His service (you) who seek the Lord. Will you not find the Lord in this, all you who wait patiently in your hearts? For the Lord will visit the pious ones, and the righteous ones He will call by name. Over the meek His Spirit will hover, and the faithful He will restore by His power. He will glorify the pious ones on the throne of the eternal kingdom. He will release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the downtrodden. For[ev]er I shall cling to him ... and [I shall trust' in His loving kindness, and [His] goodness of holiness and will not delay. And as for the wonders that are not the work of the Lord, when He [...] then he will heal the slaint, resurrect the dead, and announce glad tidings to the poor. He will lead the [hol]y ones; he will shepherd [th]em; he will do and all of it ....

Lk. 7.22-23

And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. 23 And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me."

Joseph Fitzmyer and Michael Labahn (among others) argue that the deeds are done by YHWH and not by the Messiah, while others such as Craig Evans and John Collins see this as describing activities of the anointed one himself. Here's my take: (1). Many texts do not make such a sharp bifurcation between what God does and what the Messiah/Davidic king does. Ezekiel 34 is a prime example where God says "I will come and shepherd my people" and it is also said a few verses later that a Davidic shepherd "will come and shepherd my people" and so forth. In the Psalms of Solomon 17 the focus is not merely on the Messiah but on God as King and God's own deliverance and actions for the Israelites which are correlated (somehow) with the activities of this Davidic king. (2) In Lk. 7.22-23 the question and answer seem to have a clear messianic sense. The title "coming-one" certainly designated an eschatological deliverer and quite probably a messianic figure. Jesus' oblique answer would suggest that the signs speak for themselves and John the Baptist and his disciples should not mistake the reception of the kingdom with its reality and the reality is attested by the mighty deeds that follow the Isaianic script for restoration. (3) The fact that the Qumran text begins with "heaven and earth will listen to His Messiah" implies that the Messiah is the one doing many of these actions described below. (4) That makes sense of the allusion to Isa. 61.1 where it is the "Anointed One" who preaches good news etc. (5) Lk. 4.18-21 and Q 7.22-23 provide an incidence of multiple-attestation where the activities of Isa. 61.1 are correlated with what Jesus is doing and in the last instance in the context of a messianic question.

HT: My thanks also to an email correspondence with Craig Evans on this matter!

Latest issue of JTI

The latest issue of Journal of Theological Interpretation is out and includes:

The (Re)Turn to Theology
Joel B. Green (now of Fuller Seminary!)

Reading the Bible with Eyes of Faith: The Practice of Theological Exegesis
Richard B. Hays

Texts in Context: Scripture in the Divine Economy
Murray Rae

Mission, Hermeneutics, and the Local Church
Micahel A. Rynkiewich

Trust and the Spirit: The Canon's Anticipated Unity
Christine Helmer

Christ in All the Scriptures? The Challenge of Reading the Old Testament as Christian Scripture

R.W.L. Moberly

Interpretation on the Way to Emmaus: Jesus Performs His Story
D. Brent Laythan

A "Seamless Garment" Approach to Biblical Interpretation?
Michael J. Gorman

Two Views on NT Theology

It is a remarkably interesting exercise to compare the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas presidential addresses of Martin Hengel (1993) and Wayne A. Meeks (2004) and what they both have to say about the field of New Testament theology.[1] Both addresses set forth a proposal for the future direction of scholarly study of the New Testament and, while they share a commitment to historical study of the New Testament and other sources, they have violently different opinions about the role of biblical theology in that future.

Hengel notes the efforts of several scholars (e.g. W. Wrede, G. Lüdemann, and H. Räisänen), who have made the NT canon obsolete as a historical entity with the result that: ‘In place of Introduction to the New Testament we are to have the History of Early Christian Literature; in place of a New Testament Theology, the History of the Religion of Earliest Christianity.’[2] He says in counter-point:

"To be sure, I cannot share this fear of the concept ‘theology,’ the Christian understanding of which is ultimately grounded in the Prologue of John. It is not by chance that an irreducible connection between the word of God, faith, and history is presented to us in this particular passage. The concepts theologos, theologia, and theologein enter at first on the basis of the Johannine logos in the language of the early Church Fathers and preserve over against the Greek environment a wholly new meaning. Our discipline would self-destruct were it to give up the question of truth pressed by Pauline and Johannine theological thinking and transform itself into a merely descriptive history of religion. For this is the salt that seasons our work and warrants its existence."[3]

Hengel acknowledges that study of the NT should be comprehensive and the boundary of study should be expanded to include the Judaism of the early Hellenistic period and in reference to Christian writings the upper echelon should pushed up towards the third century CE.[4] At the same time, Hengel affirms the value of the canon precisely on historical grounds since the decisive boundary-markers for the canon have already been established by 180 CE. In Hengel’s view, the writings deemed canonical by the church are not only earlier than the extra-canonical writings, but also:

"[T]he genuine Corpus Paulinum and Johanneum together with the synoptics represent the basis of Christian theology—who would doubt this? And on what would it base itself otherwise, if it expects to be and to remain Christian theology? And what authorizes the existence of our Societas, if these things were no longer so? These texts do certainly form the center of our efforts, but we shall only do them justice if we draw the circle around them more broadly, so that we grasp them in relation to their Jewish and Hellenistic antecedents as well as to their early Christian effects."[5]

According to Meeks New Testament scholars need to press on in the pursuit of history, they must pay greater attention to Wirkungsgeschichte (or reception-history), and they also should ‘erase from our vocabulary the terms “biblical theology” and, even more urgently, “New Testament theology”’ and whatever ‘contribution these concepts may have made in the conversation since Gabler, we have come to a time when they can only blinker our understanding’.[6] He substantiates that on the grounds that, first, biblical theology smuggles in a cognitivist model of religion that privileges doctrine at the expense of life. Second, biblical theology claims textual and historical warrant for propositions that emerge out of the relationship between text and reader and tacitly masks authoritative truth claim embedded in biblical texts. Third, biblical theology has functioned ideologically in order to secure one’s beliefs in a theological hierarchy within the church.[7]

There are elements from both addresses that I would be prepared to affirm and reject. Against Hengel, I find it fiercely ironic that he should minimize the significance of Religionsgeschichte when he himself has led a resurgence in the new Religionsgeschichte schule in New Testament christology (along with Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado)[8] in undermining the older theories on christological evolution asserted by Wilhelm Bousett and Rudolf Bultmann and their theological progeny. Moreover, Hengel has not assuaged the doubts of those who think that one can and should construct a Christian theology from sources broader than Paul, John and the Synoptics. For example, Helmut Koester writes: ‘The canon was the result of a deliberate attempt to exclude certain voices from the early period of Christianity: heretics, Marcionites, Gnosticism, Jewish Christians, perhaps also women. It is the responsibility of the New Testament scholar to help these voices to be heard again’.[9] Who decides the ‘theological quality’ of Mark over the Gospel of Thomas or Marcion’s Luke over canonical Luke? Against Meeks, I would be prepared to argue that George Lindbeck’s attack on the cognitivist model of doctrine is greatly overstated and amounts to a straw man argument. Alister McGrath has shown that the cognitivist-linguistic model has a lot more going for it than what critics acknowledge.[10] Likewise, theology does not necessarily promote antipathy towards authentic Christian living, but rather, it constitutes the generative force for a Christian praxis soaked in the world of the biblical texts. In addition, while all truth claims may amount to a claim to power, those who attempt to deconstruct these truth claims are themselves engaging in an ideological power play by attempting to dismantle the permanent structures of human existence (church, society, collective identity) in order to create a vacuum that can be filled with another ideological platform that is instantly immune from criticism since all criticism are a claim to power.

[1] Martin Hengel, ‘Aufgaben der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft,’ NTS 40 (1994): 321-57 = ‘Tasks of New Testament Scholarship,’ BBR 6 (1996): 67-86; Wayne A. Meeks, ‘Why Study the New Testament?’ NTS 51 (2005): 155-70.
[2] Hengel, ‘Tasks’, 72.
[3] Hengel, ‘Tasks’, 72.
[4] Hengel, ‘Tasks’, 72-73.
[5] Hengel, ‘Tasks’, 74.
[6] Meeks, ‘Why Study the New Testament?’ 167-68.
[7] Meeks, ‘Why Study the New Testament?’ 168.
[8] Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (London: SCM, 1976); Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1999); Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); idem, The Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).
[9] Helmut Koester, ‘Epilogue: Current Issues in New Testament Scholarship,’ in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 472.
[10] George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Post-Liberal Age (Philadelphia, PN: Westminster, 1984); Alister E. McGrath, The Nature of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundations of Doctrine Criticism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990).

Ad Fontes not Fads

If you read only one thing this week, I would hope that it is this piece from Martin Hengel now available on the IBR webpage.

Martin Hengel, "Tasks of New Testament Scholarship," BBR 6 (1996): 67-86.

"New Testament scholarship must move beyond its current preoccupation with faddish methods (as evidenced by several variations of the so-called new literary criticism) and return to a solid grounding in history, primary source materials, archaeology, and competence in the pertinent languages. This also entails familiarity with early Judaism, the Greco-Roman world, and early patristics. The exemplary contributions of major biblical scholars of the last century are viewed."

Teaching Textual Criticism

Over at ETC, I've added a post about Teaching Textual Criticism.

Divorce and Remarriage in the New Testament

Over at Christianity Today, David Instone-Brewer of Tyndale House has an article on: "What God has Joined: What does the Bible really teach about divorce?". This is a topic that needs to be approached with great exegetical precision and applied with great pastoral sensitivity. I've always found the exception clauses of Matthew most perplexing (I've flirted with the incest interpretation in the past), but Instone-Brewer's approach that sees Jesus as refuting the "any cause" ruling of the Hillelites seems plausible.

Arab Christians in Israel

Jim West has a post on Christians, Israel, and the Palestinian Question which is quite coincidental since at our missions prayer lunch at HTC on Wednesday we had a guest speaker from Israel. Sadly his name alludes me, but he was an Arab Christian from Israel, specifically, the Galilee, and a lawyer by vocation. He gave a good overview of Christian groups in Galilee/Lebanon including the Marionites, the Orthdodox Church, Protestants, and the Greek Catholic Church (about 300 years ago a number of Greek Orthodox churches seceded and entered into fellowship with Rome although they retain their own liturgy and rites which are still Orthodox for the most part). Our speaker told the story of how Israeli troops forcibly expelled whole villages and simply told them to go Lebanon. These were Christian villages that have never resisted Israeli rule/occupation (delete as preferred) or fired a shot in anger. His attitude towards Israel was one of frustration rather than hatred and he just wanted a fair deal, a place to live, and some political rights for Arab Christians. He talked about how Christians largely run the education and health care system in the Galilee and the ministry that they have there. It was a good talk! Personally, I remain perplexed as to why certain Christians, predominantly Americans, feel a closer degree of affinity with the secular state of Israel than they do with Palestinian Christians! I'm not anti-Israel (I think that the President of Iran, Ahmydinnerjacket [sic], has more fruit cakes in his head than an Aussie Christmas party) but we should support the plight of our Christian and brothers and sisters in the land of Palestine and object when they are boxed into ghettos.

SNTS membership

I was elated this morning when I get an email informing me that I have been accepted into membership of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (= Society for New Testament Studies). I am most grateful to Dr. Rick Strelan and Prof. Michael Lattke for nominating me. It is a real priviledge to be a member. I had an absolute ball of a time as an invitee to the SNTS meeting in Aberdeen last year and I got to meet many European scholars that I do not normally cross paths with. Robert McL. Wilson told me that he and his wife used to plan their holidays around the annual SNTS meeting and when he thought about not going one year, his wife insisted they go or otherwise she would not get the chance to meet all of the friends she had made over the years. Next years meeting is in Lund, Sweden which would be nice to go to.

Review of Yarbrough: The Salvation-Historical Fallacy

Andy Naselli offers an excellent review 0f Robert Yarbrough's The Salvation Historical Fallacy which is worth checking out. I purchased this book at last year's BNTC and still have not got around to reading it. Andy also offers a summary of some of the reviews of Yarbrough's book from JETS, Biblica, and CBQ which is handy.

The Death of Charles Moule

I think that the history of British NT scholarship in the twentieth century could be said to revolve around three guys named "Chuck" (Charles Kingsley Barrett, Charles Haddon Dodd, and Charles Moule). Alas, I have just learnt today the sad news that Charles Moule has passed away. Only yesterday I was reading Moule's sober and succint work, The Origins of Christology (Moule believed in a messianic Jesus!). See the Obituaries here:

The Reverend Professor CFD Moule

The Rev Professor C. F. D. Moule

I remember hearing D.A. Carson talk with great respect and affection about Charles Moule. Carson tells the funny story about how Moule was asking him what he thought about the pistis christou debate. After some discussion Moule turned around and said, "It really is a load of rubbish isn't it!" Carson then sent Moule some articles to read in order to help him, "keep his disgust fresh" as Carson put it.

HT: Jim West

If you like the Apostle Paul and love a good pun ...

Well, today we finally decided on a name for my new Paul book. It will be called ...

A Bird’s Eye View of Paul: The Man, His Mission, and His Message
(Nottingham: IVP, forthcoming May 2008).

This is not a joke, we're serious! When Phil Duce (IVP) suggested the title to me I nearly fell off my chair in laughter. Several minutes and several hankerchief full of tears of laughter later I began to think that it could actually work. I don't know what reviewers will make of it, but at least the title is catch.

In sum the book is meant as a fresher on Paul for pastors and as an introduction to Paul for lay people and undergraduate students.