Christos in Mark 1:1

From my work-in-progress Jesus is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels:

Mark’s incipit begins, ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah’.[1] Though several translations render 0Ihsou~j Xristo&j with ‘Jesus Christ’ (NRSV, NASB, ESV, CEB), the TNIV/NIV10 and NLT is probably correct to translate it as ‘Jesus the Messiah’. A titular meaning of Xristo&j as ‘Messiah’ here is not only possible, but preferable. Mark uses the name 0Ihsou~j some eighty-two times and Xristo&j is used sparingly only seven times, but on all but two occasions Xristo&j possesses the article and is clearly titular as designating the Messiah (Mark 8:29; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32; cf. without the article 1:1; 9:41). The subsequent usage of Xristo&j eliminates a purely nominal meaning for 0Ihsou~j Xristo&j in the incipit. What seems more likely is that 0Ihsou~j Xristo&j stands as an honorary designation for the central figure in the following story. As Adela Yarbro Collins states: ‘The narrative of Mark as a whole evokes the titular sense, “messiah.”’[2] Similar is John Donahue: ‘The density of the key terms in 1:1 prepares the reader for the dramatic unfolding of the whole work, which revolves around the proper description of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God’.[3] Mark is not content to assert this title, but his subsequent narrative demonstrates precisely how Jesus is the Messiah and what kind of mission this Messiah will undertake.[4] Thus, the question that dominates Mark’s Gospel is: who is this Messiah and how will he be enthroned? There are cryptic hints along the way as to how this Messiah will be coronated. As the plot unfolds it becomes gradually clearer that the cross dangles over the head of this Messiah like a sword of Damocles, unbeknownst to the disciples, but privy to the reader.[5]

---

[1] On the secondary nature of ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1 see Peter Head.

[2] Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 126.

[3] Donahue, The Gospel of Mark, 60.

[4] Francis J. Moloney, Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 132; I. Howard Marshall, ‘Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew,’ in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S.E. Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 121.

[5] See now Peter G. Bolt, The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel (NSBT; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004).

Graham Cole on imputation/obedience

In God the Peacemaker, Graham Cole says about Christ's obedience and faithfulness:

"Christ's faithfulness issued in obedience. His obedience constituted his righteousness. His righteousness is put to our account, if we are believers, as the traditional doctrine of imputation maintains. It is put to our account not because of a mere reckoning so by God, but because we are really united to Christ by the Spirit" (p. 118).

TECC Conference

The Theological Engagement with California Culture seminar has put out a call for papers for the November 2011 meeting of ETS. Looks, like, totally, like interesting dude.

Thoughts on Docetism

I'm spasmodically writing a textbook on Evangelical Theology and tonight I was pondering the historical Jesus and docetism. I came up with this conclusion to the section: "We only believe in the incarnation if we can affirm that the historical person Jesus of Nazareth experienced a physical resurrection after his death and a normal male erection during his life."

Book Notice: 1 Corinthians (Ciampa and Rosner)

Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner

First Letter to The Corinthians

PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.

Available at Amazon.com

There are so many good 1 Corinthians commentaries. Fee and Thiselton are the must-reads, but one can hardly neglect Garland, Hays, and Witherington either (then there's Blomberg and Morris which ain't bad either). And Richard Horsley's and Jerome Murphy O'Connor's studies on 1 Corinthians are worth checking into too. But I have to say that Ciampa and Rosner have added another excellent book to the list of top Corinthian reads by producing a solid commentary that contains several unique approaches.

Ciampa and Rosner (henceforth CR) see the problems in Corinth emerging from the inability of the Corinthians to let the gospel message shape their gentile and Graeco-Roman lives and consequently misunderstand the message and misbehave. So the problems are fundamentally about relating to cultural values rather than, say, theological like Gnosticism or over-realized eschatology. The main subjects of 1 Corinthians according to CR are wisdom, sexuality, worship, and resurrection/consummation. The OT is key in Paul's exhortation in 1 Corinthians, esp. Deuteronomy and Isaiah. CR do not apply the categories of ancient rhetoric to 1 Corinthians since such rhetoric was rarely applied in letters (though see my Expository Times essay for a qualified approval of using rhetorical categories to letters). Another feature is that the authors apply the categories of verbal aspect to the Greek text though they seem to cautiously accept that Greek verbs do have tense unless contextually cancelled. CR believe that 1 Corinthians provides some good resources to enable Christians to meet the challenges of postmodernism. They summarize the argument of 1 Corinthians as follows:

Paul's attempt to tell the church of God in Corinth that they are part of the fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation of worldwide worship of the God of Israel, and as God's eschatological temple they must act in a manner appropriate to their pure and holy status by becoming unified, shunning pagan vices, and glorifying God in an obedience to the lordship of Jesus Christ (52).

For some highlights: 1:30: "Although the four qualities[righteousness, holiness, redemption, and wisdom] both characterize Christ and are imparted by Christ, the emphasis is on the fact that believers have them by virtue of being in union with Christ" (109); 4:9-13: "A better explanation of the Corinthians' spiritual pretensions than assuming that they betray a belief that the decisive eschatological events have already taken place is set forth in ancient sources. Imagining oneself to be be filled, rich, and reigning was in fact a claim made by Cynic and Stoic philosophers ... Hence, the Corinthian problems are not to be attributed to their faulty theology or premature eschatology so much as to their conformity to the norms and values of pagan culture. Paul's strategy is to encourage the Corinthians 'to understand themselves in terms of an apocalyptic narrative that locates present existence in between the cross and the parousia' [Hays]. It is true that the eschatological framework found throughout chapters 1-4 is at the heart of Paul's attack on Corinthian boasting. But eschatology is not so much the problem as the solution" (179-80); 7:10-11: "Paul stands with Jesus in holding that divorce may be justified only where one partner clearly manifests a radical refusal to respect one's marital commitments and maintain the fundamental integrity of the marriage" (293). 7:26: "Paul was not expecting the world to come to an immediate end, it seems, or he would not have been warning people about the implications of singleness and marriage for a life with more or less stress. It seems likely that even if he understood the present crisis to be part of larger eschatological developments, it would pass at some point" (337). 9:21: "Although Paul understood himself to live under the conditions of the new covenant in Christ rather than under the law of Moses, he was happy enough to observe the law when living among those who might have stumbled if he had not. Paul probably has in mind issues like the observance of food and Sabbath laws as well as halakic standards of the communities where he ministered" (427). 11:3: "Paul seems to be affirming that the creation pattern is still significant and cannot be shrugged off. While there is a tension between creation and new creation (esp. fallen creation and new creation), creation is the context in which Christians live out their lives, and it cannot be passed off as irrelevant" (510). 15:29: "It may be that Paul describes the people to whom he is referring in the third person rather than first- or second-person plural ('those who are baptized on account of the dead' rather than 'you/we who were baptized for the dead') because different people find different things about the Christian message particularly appealing. If so, Paul has in mind those who were particularly concerned about the afterlife and whose primary motivation in responding to the gospel message was its promise that those who trust in Christ need not fear death, since the dead in Christ will be raised in glory and power."

A fine volume and worth having in your personal library.

I should note that the next big 1 Corinthians commentary to look out for is Andrew Clark in the WBC series!

The Christ of Early Christology - R.N. Longenecker

According to Richard N. Longenecker (The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970], 63): ‘Basic to the christology of the earliest Jewish Christians was the conviction of Jesus as the Messiah. Subject as it was to political and nationalistic connotations, and requiring definition in order to be serviceable, it was the application of this title to Jesus which laid the foundation for the church’s continuing thought about, and further acclamation of, the Man from Nazareth. So basic and central, in fact, was the messiahship of Jesus in the consciousness of early believers that it was the Greek word for Messiah, xristo&j, and not another, which became uniquely associated with the person of Jesus, first as an appellative and then as a proper name, and which became the basis for their own cognomen in the ancient world as well.”

Scotland's Newest University

I want to say congratulations to the UHI Millennium Institute for being granted University title and (finally) becoming the University of the Highlands and Islands! See the news report here. This is also a great day for the Highland Theological College which is part of UHI (where I taught for four and a half years).

Let me say that if you want to do a Ph.D in Theology or Biblical Studies in the UK, I heartily recommend to you UHI which has a great Theological Faculty at HTC with lots of experience in supervising Ph.Ds. They have very flexible arrangements for persons who wish to remain in the USA for part or all of their study.

Sermon: In the Radiance of the New Jerusalem

You can listen to my recent sermon on the New Jerusalem here. Sermon was preached at Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park.

20 Most Brilliant Christian College Professors

Here is a list of Christian College professors who are "all “brilliant” in the original sense of the word—they shine brightly among their peers as towering figures in the academic world. In addition, they are all Christians who do not hide their Christianity and see it as significantly impacting their intellectual work." See the list.

Antinomian Wars Continued

Jason's Hood CT piece continues to prompt controversy and discussion about the proud tag of being antinomian (see here, here, and here; and apparently Jason is even a United Methodist and an Arminiam too; note Jason's response to some here). Part of the problem is, I suspect, that there are schemes of theology that have an indicative but lack the grounds for articulating an ethical imperative that is based on the exhortations of Scripture (my earlier thoughts on this subject are posted here). Scott Clark responds to Jason Hood from a Reformed perspective in effect accusing Jason of promoting a theology of glory, perfectionism, and (heaven forbid) Weslyanism. Personally, I think it is clear that Jason is promoting none of these (though perhaps Clark is caricaturing for rhetorical effect and trying to warn of extreme versions of what Jason actually said). Any ways, a few thoughts in my polite rejoinder:

1. The "Reformed reading" of Romans 7 is rather elastic. Augustine initially regarded the wretched man of Romans 7 as a non-believer, but then switched to regarding him as a believer because it was just good ammo for ragging on Pelagius. While Augustine's latter view and Calvin's have mostly carried the day, it was not unanimous and not without significant variations on the details. I used to teach a course on "The History of Reformed Interpretation of Romans" and I always set my students the essay topic, "What is the Reformed View of Romans 7?". Their answer usually was that there isn't one. For instance, H. Ridderbos and J. Murray are not your standard candle bearers for Calvin, but are no less Reformed. Elsewhere I've listed what I think are some good exegetical reasons why Romans 7 is not talking about Christians who struggle with Law and Sin. Let's resolve this with appeals to Scripture and not just footnotes to Calvin as Calvin himself would have wanted.

2. My biggest criticism is reserved for what Clark says here: "Do I need exhortation? Sure, I need the law. It doesn’t produce perfection in me or even godliness, but it does drive me to Christ, who was and remains perfect for me. When the law and my sins accuse me righteously I confess but I also say, “If Christ is for us, who can be against us?”" As a preface let me say that Clark believes we should try to be better Christians and he rightly recognizes that Spirit and gospel are the instruments that achieve this in the Christian life. No disagreement here. Much like N.T. Wright the problem is not what he affirms, but in what he denies. If I read him correctly, Clark denies that exhortations in the OT/NT actually inspire us or drive us to do good. Now Imagine preaching through the Sermon on the Mount with this view. If I may caricature: "Don't worry folks, Jesus' doesn't actually expect any of you to do this stuff, he just said it to make you realize what rotten sinners you are and understand how much you need his imputed righteousness." Or imagine, preaching through James with this view. Hear again the fictive voice: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to believe more deeply in the doctrines of grace" (Jas 1:27 HPR [Hyper-Reformed Version]). Who could preach Matthew 5-7 or James 1:27 this way and get away with it? Jason Hood is not calling for perfectionism. Nor does prosecuting our sanctification with effort require a semi-Pelagian anthropology. To paraphrase Phil 2:13, we are to work out what God has worked into us.

Clark rightly captures Paul's anthropological pessimism about the nature of human sin and he wants to ensure the sola of sola gratia. I concur! Yet I think the perspective that he sets forth while big on sin and the need for the gospel, ultimately has a low view of the transforming power of the gospel itself. I have a hard time believing in a grace so radical that it will never change me. The exhortations we find in Romans 6 and Galatians 5 are there to be done, because they can be done, not perfectly, not infallibly, but in the power of the Spirit who indwells believers. The new creation actually creates good works in us. That ain't Wesley talking it's Jesus, Paul, Luke, John, and Peter.

I often set my students this essay question: "What better describes the state of Christians: (a) Sinners saved by grace; or (b) Saints who sometimes sin?" You could say that both are true, but there are slightly different nuances to them. Is it our pre-gospel state that defines our identity and behavior, or our post-gospel state that defines our identity and behavior. I favor the latter. I am no longer who I was nor will I ever be that person again. He is dead, crucified, buried, and raised to new life. Yes, the old me steeped in sin tries to resurrect itself, and when it does I try my hardest to put it to death, for I know it pleases my Lord to do so. Or, as I've said elsewhere, beware of exploding wolves!

When Did Jesus Become the Messiah? (Part 1)

One of the problem in the origins of christology is the question, "When did Jesus become the Messiah?" Scholarship has often assumed that Jesus' life was non-messianic, not only that, but Jesus in fact repudiated the messianic role. His rebuke to Peter in Mk 8.27ff was for calling him the Messiah in the first place, or so it goes at least. The triumphal entry and cleansing of the temple were not originally messianic although messianic layers of meaning were added by the Evangelists later on. The accusation made at the trial that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah was a false charge. So Jesus was not a a messianic claimant, but Christianity became a messianic movement at some point, and the Evangelists read messianism back into his pre-Easter ministry. (For those who want an alternative scheme see my book Are You the One Who is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question).

How then did Jesus become known as the Messiah? Well three main schools of thought are around. One view, going back to William Wrede, is that the early church inferred his messiahship from his resurrection. After all, a link is made between the resurrection and Jesus' identity as the Son of David in Rom 1.3-4. Criticism of this view has been brutal. First, how does "resurrection" equal "messiah". We have no example of a figure returning to life and then being called the Messiah. Second, messianic themes are mostly absent from the resurrection narratives. Third, as Johannes Weiss pointed out, only because Jesus' death counted against his messianic claim could his resurrection be proof in favor of it!

Others such as Ferdinand Hahn maintain that Jesus' messiahship was inferred from belief in his future parousia. Acts 3.20-21 is believed to hint in this direction. The concept of messiahship was introduced into the tradition to gave a title to his eschatological role in the denouement. There are problems again here. First, if Jesus' first coming was not messianic, what should necessitate that his second should be? Jesus' identity as Son of Man and Lord were sufficient categories to designate his eschatological role at his parousia. What need is there to make him into a Messiah? Second, one wonders if eschatology is being equated with messianism. But an eschatological agent does not have to be a messianic one.

Third, for many the designation "Messiah" was used to indicate in language popular in some circles that Jesus was a divine agent of some import. I think Maurice Casey takes this view though I need to double check with a re-read of From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God which I don't have on hand. Again, the problem is that there were many ways of indicating someone was a "somebody" in the eschatological storyline without recourse to messianism. What is more, introducing the notion of a crucified messiah would sound a bit like an oxymoron and create heaps of problems in Jewish communities. In fact, the early church had every reason to abandon the designation rather than to keep it. Some authors ranging from the proto-orthodox Epistle of Barnabas to the Nag Hammadi writings show that some Christians did abandon the Son of David/Messiah tradition as too Jewish.

So when did Jesus become the Messiah? For that see part two on Monday!

Why Being Called "Antinomian" is not a Sign of Orthodoxy

Jason Hood has another cool article out over at CT. This time he is arguing that being accused of being antinomian is not a badge of honor for orthodox Christians. Here's a quote to whet your appetite: "Jesus' requirements for any and all who wish to be his disciple and bear his name—self-denial and cross-bearing, holiness and purity—will inevitably sound like legalism in a restraint-free culture dominated by Eat, Pray, Love spirituality and Joel Osteen-grade theology."

NT Position

Lecturer in New Testament

The Reformed Theological College in Geelong, Victoria, Australia (i.e. Melbourne) is looking for a full-time NT lecturer starting in January 2012.

The position is suited to someone with a research degree in NT and is able to teach Greek, biblical theology, hermeneutics, and NT exegesis. Proven ability in teaching, extensive ministry experience, good communication and inter-personal skills are essential. Applications should be sent to principal@rtc.vic.edu.au by 39 April 2011.

Things to Click

Roger Olson calls for a summit of Calvinists and Evangelicals (yeah, good luck with that!). The Evangelical Alliance has poll results on the beliefs and habits of Evangelicals in the UK, an interesting contrast with the USA. Robin Parry points to a cute clip on the Apostles' Creed. Jason Hood writes a good article at TGC about Anglican Church Planting in Washington.

Karl Barth on the Virgin Birth

If anyone thinks Barth is an old-school liberal, they really need to read CD I/2.172-202 on the "Miracle of Christmas". I found his criticism of Emil Brunner most amusing [Brunner rejects the virgin birth]. Barth writes: "Brunner's contribution to this matter in his more recent book, Man in Revolt, is so bad that my only possible attitude to it is silence." That is a shalacking!

Latest Expository Times

The latest issue of ExpTim includes these articles:

Lisa Isherwood

Dancing Theology on Earthquakes: Trends and Direction in Feminist Theologies

Larry W. Hurtado

Early Devotion to Jesus: A Report, Reflections and Implications

Paul Foster

Q or Not Q (Review Article)

The Ehrman Project

Michael Gorman draws attention to the launch of a website dedicated to engaging/refuting the various works of Prof. Bart D. Ehrman. It is called the Ehrman Project and it was actually begun by Miles O'Neil who works for UNC Chapel Hill where Ehrman is a Professor. Ehrman has written a number of works about textual criticism, the historical Jesus, the early church, God and Evil, etc. and ordinarily with the aim of debunking Christianity and promoting unbelief. I respect Ehrman's works greatly, esp. his early TC stuff. But I confess that I simply find it astounding that Ehrman will argue in one book that the biblical manuscripts are unreliable and corrupted and then in the next book he'll use these corrupted manuscripts to reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus, Paul, Peter, Mary Magdalene, the whole early church. It is kinda like announcing that the emperor has no clothes in one book and in the next book criticizing what the emperor wore to the royal tea party. It's one or the other!

John: The Scarlet Pimpernel

Mark Stibbe in an article entitled, "The Elusive Christ: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospels". Stibbe writes:

"Jesus is an elusive figure. Even when Nicodemus finds him, Jesus proves opaque to his understanding. When the crowds seek Jesus, he only allows them to find him when he is ready for them. And as for the Jewish authorities, I am reminded of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel: 'they seek him here, they seek him there, those Jews seek him everywhere'".

Around the Blogosphere

Things to note around the blogs:

It must be approaching MLK day in the USA and Denny Burk links to John Piper's 2000 sermon on racial reconciliation based on Ephesians 2.11-122. A recommended read!

Rachel at re-vis.ingre-form has some links on Eternal Subordination of the Son.

Chris Keith asks if we will ever have another Martin Hengel.

The Historical Jesus and the Parting of the Ways

Next week should see the publication of the massive tome Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, edited by S.E. Porter and T. Holmen (Leiden: Brill, 2011), which includes 4 volumes with over a 120 essays. Note, this will be a library resource as opposed to a personal buy at the bargain basement price of $1329 USD (but then again it's USD which ain't so bad these days). Still, this will be one of the definitive resources for study of the historical Jesus for decades to come, so you should at least know about it if you are involved in Jesus/Gospel studies.

However, with permission from Brill, I'm able to put on-line my own contribution to the volume in the essay, The Historical Jesus and the 'Parting of the Ways'.

Conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy

Here's an interesting article on conversions/defections by Christians into Orthodox Churches.

Review of Crossing Over Sea and Land

Brian Tucker provides a good review/summary of my book Cross Over Sea and Land at his blog Identity Formation in the New Testament.

Martin Hengel on on the Christ Hymn

Just reading the conclusion to Martin Hengel's The Son of God and this is what he says about the Christ Hymn of Philippians 2 (p. 76):

"Now if Christ is identical with the heavenly, pre-temporal 'image of God', that also means that he was ' of divine nature', as we hear at the beginning of the Philippians hymn. Thus, although he is clearly subordinate, the Son no longer stood on the side of creation alone, but also on the side of God. Only through the incarnation, which is 'consummated' in his death on the cross, does he receive a share in human destiny and can he be regarded as reconciler and intercessor for men. Jesus was now no longer just the perfect righteous man, chosen by God, who was in complete accord with God's will, a model for discipleship, but in addition the divine mediator who out of the Father's love for lost men obediently gave up his heavenly communion with the Father and took on human form and human destiny, a destiny which led to a shameful death on the cross. Thus incarnation and death became an unsurpassable expression of the divine love."

Interview with Susan Eastman

Over at the JSPL Blog, there is an interview with Susan Eastman conducted by Nijay Gupta. The interview covers topics as diverse as imitation and participation in Plato and Paul, the Christ-Hymn of Philippians 2, and Christian ministry in Sudan.

ESV Study Bible, the Cadillac of Study Bibles

It has been said, and is assumed by many, that every serious Christian (at least in the literate western/eastern worlds) should own a good study Bible. With this sentiment I must agree. At NPU we require students in our Intro to the Bible classes to purchase the NLT Study Bible. I've used this Bible extensively and find it to be a very useful tool. Moreover the NLT translation is perfect for our audience of undergrads many of whom have never cracked the spine of a Bible.

Recently I picked up the The ESV Study Bibleand I think it is the best study Bible now available. It has set the standard for all subsequent Bibles of its kind. Whatever one may think of the ESV as a translation, it is difficult to argue with the quality and quantity of background material that surround the translation in this Study Bible. There is more packed into this nearly 3000 page Bible than any other. There are elements in the Bible parallel with what one might find elsewhere [an example of this are the articles at the back of the Bible in a format similar to the Jewish Study Bible published by Oxford Press], but one will not find anything else quite like this available.

What sets this Study Bible apart from say the NLT Study Bible are a number of things. Among them are:

1. The topics covered by the articles in the ESV Study Bible are more wide ranging than what one will find in the NLT.
2. There are color graphics throughout the Bible - It boasts of over 200 full-color maps and 40 illustrations
3. There are more diagrams that useful present dense information - 200-plus charts

Review of Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission

Over at RBL, Craig Evans reviews my published dissertation Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission. He accepts the premise that Jesus should be situated in the context of Jewish restoration eschatology, but critiques my apparent claim that Jesus engaged in a mission to Gentiles. The only response I would make is that I don't think I ever said that Jesus engaged in a "mission" to Gentiles. Jesus' mission was to usher in the restoration of Israel yet a corollary was that a restored Israel would transform the world. Jesus' actions are the basis of the later Gentile mission. Or, I argued that the Christian Gentile mission has antecedents in Jesus' pre-Easter activities in his openness to sinners and Gentiles.

Trustworthiness of the Bible?

Does anyone know of a rather recent, brief essay on the trustworthiness of the Bible written for a popular audience?

Michael Horton on Jesus vs. Paul

Over at the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton chimes in on the Jesus vs. Paul debate. My own thoughts are in the comments section of the post.

Western Protestants Need to Remember their African Heritage

Mouneer H. Anis (Anglican Primate of Egypt and North Africa) has written a good article on Anglicans and Global Mission. He writes:

"The main focus of our reformed churches was directed towards the study of the Scriptures, mission and evangelism. As a result many generations emerged that are grounded and rooted in the apostolic teaching as written in the Scripture, but that are disassociated from the apostolic traditions which form the context in which the Scriptures were written and lived out."

It's a good read about how having a faith rooted in the apostolic and catholic tradition will naturally lend itself to seeking deeper communion with the more traditional (i.e., older) churches.

The genius of Anglicanism is striving to uphold the Reformation principles while remaining faithful to the Great Tradition of the Church.

Loving your Muslim Neighbours

Over at CT, Jason Hood has written a stimulating article on what it means to love our Muslim Neighbors in Muslims in Evangelical Churches. Would you allow Muslims to use your church as a worship sanctuary while their mosque is being repaired?

Musalaha - Israeli and Palestianian Believers in Jesus

For those eager for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, Musalaha is an organization that you should know about. Their mission is presented in this statement:

Musalaha is a non-profit organization that seeks to promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians as demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus. We endeavor to be an encouragement and advocate of reconciliation, first among Palestinian and Israeli believers and then beyond to our respective communities. Musalaha also aims at facilitating bridge building among different segments of Israeli and Palestinian societies according to biblical reconciliation principles.

CNN: 11 Faith-Based Predictions for 2011

Read the interesting piece (largely from an American perspective) at CNN on religious issues to watch for in 2011.

RBL Review of Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King

I was very pleased to see another review of my book Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King (De Gruyter, 2007). Don Garlington review in RBL was published today. I want to thank Garlington for his thorough reading of the book evidenced in his very useful summary of nearly 4 pages. Students of Matthew wishing to know what I argued and how I argued it without before reading or let alone buying (Garlington notes the outrageous price of De Gruyter books) the book would do well to read this review, at least the first four pages. In addition his general assessment is positive:

As an overall assessment, this is a notable and useful work. The exegesis is detailed, informed, and serves to shed a good deal of light on the First Gospel against the backdrop of Tanak and in the context of Second Temple literature. Certainly, the attention given to the geographical and political dimensions of the Gospel is very apropos. The book is well organized and, in the main, clearly written, with numerous internal summaries that facilitate the reading process. Helpful as well are the frequent tables that place various texts in parallel for the purposes of comparison and contrast . . . this is a volume well worth consulting on the part of research scholars, not least because of its frequent insights (e.g., 133–34, 138). Certainly as a heuristic undertaking, the book is to be commended for its boldness in advancing an uncommon reading of Matthew.

In the end however he finds himself in agreement with D. Senior’s review in the same publication. He writes,

In sum, notwithstanding the value of Willitts’s thesis for research purposes, I have to agree with Donald Senior’s previous evaluation of the book: “the narrow focus that Willitts suggests for Matthew’s Gospel, even when coupled with a vision of eschatological triumph, strains the imagination”

His agreement with Senior is apparently the result of at least 4 criticisms. I want to respond briefly to three.

1. The passages in the Hebrew Bible do not establish the case that the scattered sheep of Israel have exclusive or even particular reference to the North and postulating that Matthew restricts “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” to this region is solely to beg the question. Here I would submit that with a more accurate reading of the thesis would reveal that my logic for the conclusion about the identity of “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” is not based on a false understanding of the identification of the “scattered flock” as exclusively the northern kingdom. I don’t believe I ever make that claim. The biblical evidence does however show that the scattered flock were the exilic people of both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. This criticism to me seems off the mark.

2. The name “Israel” is varied and ambiguous, as I myself note, so in Garlington’s estimation this is “another instance of assuming a conclusion, or at least of special pleading”. He adds “The data presented are simply not decisive or compelling, making it difficult to believe that Matthew necessarily envisages the northern kingdom as distinct from “all Israel.” On this point I am again slightly surprised by the criticism since it appears that Garlington read the thesis carefully. My point in the chapter to which he references the discussion is to show that each context must be considered definitive for understanding the meaning of the name “Israel”. I make a comprehensive argument to show that the “house of Israel” is a reference to the northern kingdom although I make the point that the limitation was suggestive of a restoration of “all Israel”. In other words, Matthew’s Jesus was interested in a comprehensive salvation of Israel corporately and territorially. So when Garlington asserts that I’m “assuming the conclusion” I again think this misses the mark significantly. He may not buy my argumentation, but I don’t assume the conclusion. I would like to know what he means by this so that I can think this through more carefully if there is something to his criticism.

3. The hermeneutical issue of “literal” versus “symbolic” or “typological”. He asserts that “I do little to provide a convincing refutation” of a symbolic/typological reading of “land”. First it should be noted what was the purpose of the chapter in question. Garlington is not alone in judging my thesis on my inadequate argument in favor of Matthew's belief in territorial restoration. The chapter however was not meant to be comprehensive. It was rather to be a preliminary argument that would supplement the larger argument of the thesis. I readily admit more work needs to be done, but I was attempting to at least make such a suggestion reasonable in a scholarly climate where even the question seems bordering on outrageous. He claims that I do not take “seriously enough the factor of typology in Matthew”. He agrees that the expectation of territorial restoration was in the air in first-century Palestine, but he queries in what appears to be a rhetorical question: “was Matthew in sympathy with this sort of expectation? (emphasis his)?” For some reason he thinks this would be a highly unlikely hypothesis adding “especially in light of Matthew’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures”. Well, this seems like questioning begging to me. What about Matthew’s use of Scripture would undermine just such a hypothesis? Does typology? I don’t believe so. This is all the more clear to me when Matthew was apparently doing the same thing with the Scriptures that other Jews of his day were with Scripture who held just such a view? So why wouldn’t he? That is my question. I don’t see the hermeneutical problem. Instead, and this should not be a surprise, I believe presuppositions, deeply held, are the reason this kind of hypothesis is considered to “strains the imagination”.

Well there was another point about imperial readings of Matthew and I’ll have more to say on in a forthcoming piece. Notwithstanding the contentious points mentioned above, I am thankful for Garlington’s review and I would look forward to dialoguing about these with him at some point in the future if he's willing. I respect Garlington as a scholar and Christian and have learned a great deal from him particularly on issues of the New Perspective.

Communion is about Death and Resurrection

Markus Barth (Rediscovering the Lord's Supper, 45-46) makes a good point that communion celebrates the death and resurrection of Jesus.

"Those celebrating the Lord's Supper know the pain and shame, the horror and scandal, of Christ's death. However, they rejoice in the crucifixion and praise the slaughtered Lamb because God has raised him from the dead the crucified Son and has accepted his intercession by enthroning him at God's right hand. In Paul's theology, as much as in the message of John, Hebrews, First Peter, and Revelation, the Crucified is always the raised and living Christ. The one who rules the church and the world and who will come again is the crucified Christ. Through Christ alone the godless are justified and reconciled, saved and given peace (Rom. 4:5, 25; 5:1; 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:10-14; 5:14-15, 18-20; Eph. 1:19-23; 4:9-10; Rev. 5). We have abundant reason to rejoice in Christ's death and to praise the slaughtered yet living Lamb."

BAR and 2011 Digs

I received the latest issue of BAR (Biblical Archaeological Review) this past week. I have a love/hate relationship with this yearly issue because it invites volunteers for the upcoming 2011 digs in Israel. I love archaeology, but I have very little experience doing it and with a young family and ministry commitments little opportunity to pursue it. So when I get this issue, I find great envy welling up in me as I think about those who will volunteer on these digs. I have been on two digs: one in 2000 and another in 2007. If I could I'd go to Israel every summer for a few weeks to haul rocks and dirt out of squares.

Truth be told, I'm not very attracted to philosophy and I don't have great theological chops, but I find engagement with the tangible world of the New Testament to be one of the most thrilling experiences I've had intellectually, spiritually and professionally. For me, the best New Testament interpreters are those who know text and artifact. I unfortunately must admit I know little about both. One of my heroes in NT studies is the German scholar Rainer Riesner, with whom I once had opportunity to meet. He exemplifies just this combination. He has a wonderful little book on "Bethany beyond the Jordan" (Bethanien jenseits des Jordan) where you see firsthand the power of the two disciplines at work.

If you are just beginning your academic study in the New Testament, let me make a plea that you complement your study of the text with a study of artifact. Take course in archaeology if their offered (I'll never do this, but I would enjoy getting an MA in archaeology). Go on a dig(s). If you are single I challenge you to go to Israel and spend a year of your study there. Learn the Land and get dirty. Alternatively, go to Greece or Turkey if you're more interested in the Greco-Roman world. I sat in on a session at SBL that was a fascinating presentation on recent discoveries of Jewish synagogues in Turkey.

Markus Barth on the Lord's Supper

I'm reading through Rediscovering the Lord's Supper by Markus Barth (thanks to Wipf & Stock for the copy). Here is what Barth concludes about the Jewish background of the Lord's Supper:

1. The abandonment of altar-like structures in favor of real tables.

2. The participation of children because it is not only permissible but necessary.

3. The combination of liturgical act with a real meal, called an agape in the early church.

4. Joyful and jubilant means of celebration including oral, musical or artistic contributions.

5. The elimination of clerical dominion over the meal.

6. The opening of the church and chapel doors with for spontaneous and regular communion.

Merry Christmas to Euangelion Readers

From Joel and myself a very merry Christmas to all and blessings for the new year ahead!

Anyway, here is a quote from my "Stupid History" calendar for Dec 24:

"The Puritans, known for their religious fervor, hated Christmas. A law was passed in 1659 outlawing the celebration of Christmas, and a five-shilling fine was levied against anyone 'found observing, by abstinence from labor, feasting or any other way, any such days as Christmas day.' They considered Christmas 'an extreme forgetfulness of Christ, by giving liberty to carnal and sensual delights'."

This is why the Free Presbyterians in the UK don't celebrate Christmas today.

That is also why I'm not Free Presbyterian (plus several other very good reasons).

The grace be with you all!

John Calvin on the Fourth Gospel

Thanks to Andreas Kostenberger (A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters, 5) I found this quote from Calvin about John's Gospel:

"And since they [the four Gospels]

had the same object, to show Christ,

the first three exhibit His body,

if I may be permitted to put it like that,

but John shows His soul."

Christmas according to the Book of Revelation

I'm preparing my Christmas sermon for tomorrow on Revelation 12. Here is the introduction:

It’s Christmas. So put up your nativity sets. Polish up your star of Bethlehem. Feed the donkeys. Put your plastic baby Jesus in the manger. I guess we should dress up as shepherds, wise men, and angels. Let’s do the nativity all over again as we do every year. Get some cute little girl to play Mary, hold hands with a cute little Joseph. Watch them bring frankincense, gold, and myrrh. We can sing “Little Drummer Boy” and “We Three Kings”. If we want to get theological we can argue about whether Jesus was born in a stable, a guest room with animals, or a cave. We all know the story. But let me ask you this. What if we could do the nativity story directed by Quentin Tarantino? (QT is a director of some of the most violent films that you’ll ever see like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill). What would the nativity look like if Quentin Tarnatino wrote and directed it? I think the answer is Revelation 12? A woman in child birth is crying out in pain while a dragon is waiting to devour whatever is ejected from her birth canal. This is the nativity of John the Seer! No mangers, no shining stars over Bethlehem, a dragon waiting to kill and consume the Christ child. You see for John the Seer, Christmas (the birth of Jesus) is not simply a positive message of hope, good will, and joy to all people. Christmas is about God’s plan to destroy evil, vanquish the devil, and the triumph of God’s people against their chief adversary. Christmas is not consumer Christianity for the masses. It is an apocalyptic drama of God’s plan to repossess the world for himself through the seed of Eve, the child of a Galilean maiden, the fruit of Israel’s own womb. It’s the Woman vs. the Dragon. It is the Church vs. Satan – that is why Jesus was born. That is Christmas according to the book of Revelation.

Australian School Chaplains on CT

Over at CT is an article about how the Australian Govt. funds Chaplains in State and Private schools (I should say that funding is limited to two days per week and any further financial support comes from local churches and local businesses). The program is being continued and even enhanced under the current Prime Minister Julia Gillard even though she is an atheist. Most of the chaplains come from evangelical churches and participate in the pastoral care of students and provide religious education. My college trains many students who are already working as chaplains. I think that for many Americans this would be just mind blowing to even imagine government funding of religious chaplains in State schools. Despite being a very secular country, programs like this are popular and successful because these chaplains are the like the Salvation Army of the school yard. The school chaplains are supported by both sides of politics and the only party that opposes the scheme are the Greens (who probably would prefer to see the funds spent on teaching children how to grow, sell, and use cannabis without their parents or the police finding out about it).

Righteousness and Covenant Membership (Again)

Pauline studies is like the mafia, every time you think you're out they drag you back in. I would much rather be writing about Gospels. Any how, I cannot resist one thought. Over at Table Talk, Charles Hill has a review N.T. Wright's Justification. I think Hill is right that "righteousness" in Paul is not reducible to covenant membership. Paul did not need the word of the cross to know that God is the God of Gentiles too (though whether Wright actually reduces righteousness to that and nothing more than that is perhaps another question, elsewhere his definition appears broader, but I take the point as a valid criticism based on what I've also read Wright write). But then again, as I've consistently argued, one's status before God and one's identity in the people of God are indelibly connected. Reformed theologians should be the first to agree with this: God justifies the elect! Paul's primary contention in Galatians and Romans is not to refute a works righteousness merit theology, but Paul is arguing that one does not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul is certainly critiquing the view that one's status before God is determined by law keeping, but the law in question is also bound up with the election of the Jewish nation, their constitution, charter, covenant, and conduct - so it's also ethnographic and corporate. So I don't see how one can, or why one would want to, play off righteousness as a status with righteousness as something about group identity (and that applies to pro- or anti-NPP). Overall, Hill's discussion of the context of Romans 1-3 is correct, except for one thing. Hill writes:

"From Romans 2:25 Paul starts putting Jew and Gentile on the same level. Circumcision and being a Jew are spiritual things. Being a literal Jew had advantages so long as the advantages were used rightly. But the Jews were not faithful. (Nor can they accuse God, whose holy prerogative it is to judge mankind.)"

I grimaced when I read that "circumcision" and "being a Jew" were "spiritual things". It's partly true given 2.28-29, but not in 2.25-26. Cause I'm not circumcised (whoops, that's probably TMI for most of you), but I have been in the gym showers with men who are circumcised and their circumcision looks pretty real to me. And I've met a few Jewish people in my time and their Jewishness seems ethnic, cultural, and religious to me and not something that exists purely on a spiritual plain (note, I'm being facetious as ever, and I don't imagine that this is the sum of Hill's exposition of these verses). The words "Jew" and "circumcision" were prestige terms that one could claim, boast about, and appeal to as the grounds for one's status before God and membership in a community. What is interesting in Romans 2:25-29 (forgetting the controversy around 2.13-16 for now) is that this is where we find Paul's first reference to imputation! Paul there states clearly that the circumcised can have their circumcision came to naught if they fail to keep the law. Conversely, the uncircumcised can be reckoned (logisthesetai) as circumcised if they do keep the law (2.26). In fact, by the power of the Spirit that is exactly what these Gentile persons do and that is why I and others like Tom Schreiner think the Gentiles in Rom 2.25-29 are Christian Gentiles. These Gentiles have a circumcision of the heart (yes, a spiritual circumcision) that is better than a physical circumcision, importantly, this circumcision of the heart promised in the Torah gives everything that physical circumcision does and more. These Gentiles also receive praise from God (and I wonder if praise here might actually be almost salvific/forensic, i.e., acceptance, regard, and embrace by God). But if circumcision is a designation of the identity as a Jew and the benefits and privileges that go with it, then, the first thing imputed to Gentiles in Romans is membership in the covenant people.

To recap, I've argued elsewhere (e.g., SROG) that righteousness cannot be limited to covenant membership. However, I find it impossible to read Romans and Galatians without identifying Paul's language of righteousness with the ethnic, corporate, and ecclesial issues of the identity of the people of God beside the matter of the basis of their acceptance before God through faith in Jesus Christ. That is why a number of commentators as diverse as Peter O'Brien and Francis Watson and myself argue that justification has horizontal and vertical dimensions.

Parallels Between Revelation 4 & 5

I've recently preached on Revelation 5 at my Church in Brisbane (Acacia Ridge Presbyterian Church). In my thinking it is crucial to see how Revelation 4 & 5 go together. In terms of the high christology of Revelation, we can observe the parallels between the praise ascribed to God in Revelation 4 and that ascribed to Christ in Revelation 5. Charles Talbert (Apocalypse, 26-27) notes the parallelism between the two chapters:

God's glory (4.2b-8a) - Lamb's glory (5.4-7)

Worship of God (4.8b-11) - Worship if the Lamb (5.8-12)

First hymn (4.8b) - First hymn (5.9-10)

Narrative (4.9-10) - Narrative (5.11-12a)

Second hymn (4.11) - Second hymn (5.12b)

Things to Click

Around the blogosphere I note the following:

Patrick Schreiner notes a new book co-edited by his Father Tom Schreiner on the Lord's Supper in the Baptist Tradition. He provides an interview with the editors Tom Schreiner and Matthew Crawford about the book. I've glimpsed at the book and it looks good. Though as many of my student's know, I often joke about the Baptist view of the sacraments as teaching a doctrine of "real absence," i.e., wherever Jesus is, he's nowhere near the bread and wine. In fact, it is probably better if he doesn't even come to our communion service, because if he did ever come too close to the bread or the wine, we might end up turning Catholic. Caricatures aside, this book by Schreiner and Crawford looks like a good description of the Lord's Supper in the Believers church.

There is a continuing debate over at the Gospel Coalition on Bible Translation, this time discussing 2 Tim 2:2 about entrusting things to reliable "men" or reliable "people". Contributors to the discussion include Craig Blomberg, Ray Van Neste, and Michael Bird. More on the theme of women, you can read Ben Witherington's interview at CPX about Jesus, women, and the church. The Zondervan blog also draws attention to one of it's books How I Changed My Mind About Women in Leadership.

On Paul, there is a podcast about Brian Tucker's book You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Social Formation of Identity in 1 Corinthians 1-4. Matt Montonini also draws attention to a video interview with Doug Campbell about his book Deliverance of God (gotta love that Kiwi accent).

Evaluation of Emerging Movement

Crossway College graduate student, Eleanora L. Scott has an article in the latest issue of Evangelical Review of Theology on "A Theological Critique of the Emerging, Postmodern Mission Church/Movement". She writes in her conclusion:

"There are issues that EM must consider. Experience should not be elevated above theology, although they may sit side by side. Spirituality must not be seen as self-centered or as neutral and spiritual conflict must be expected and addressed. The movement must remain self-critical, critical of current culture, and open to the criticism of others. Phases that unnecessarily incite the existing church and reductionist views of church history must be avoided. And God's mission to the wider world must not be marginalized. However, the contributions that the EM has to make to ecclesiology and the existing church outweigh these issues. Tapping into the culture's desire for spiritual experience is remarkable. Embrace those who are different and including them in authentic community is extremely important in redeeming the church's image as elitest and irrelevant ... Time will tell whether EM is as significant as it appears; EM could very well be another Reformation of sorts. Kimball suggests that we measure EM's success 'by looking at what our practices produce in the called people of God as they are sent out on a mission to live as light and salt in their communities'. This is certainly reasonable."

Kingdom of God and the Cross

Justin Taylor posts some thoughts by Greg Gilbert on the Kingdom of God and the Cross. In light of a spate of lectures on this subject by N.T. Wright (e.g., at Duke Divinity School; IBR in Atlanta) and Scot McKnight's recent article in CT, I think we should have a conference on this topic somewhere. I know what my presentation would be called: "Can you Preach the gospel from the Gospels?" Perhaps the YRR and Emergent folk will find something in common at last (besides the art of caricaturing the views of those they disagree with). If some brave soul wants to organize this, let me know when and where!

PTS Conference on Romans 5-8

In 2012 at Princeton Theological Seminary there is a conference on Creation, Conflict, and Cosmos that is about Romans 5-8. See the details here.

Who are the Christians in the Middle East?

My non-academic purchase at SBL was Who are the Christians in the Middle East? by Betty Jane Bailey and J. Martin Bailey. Very informative read. I learned a lot about the Middle East Council of Churches and the Fellowship of Middle East Christian Churches. Christianity is a lot stronger in Egypt and Sudan than I thought at least in terms of numbers. Best quote of the book was from the Sudanese ambassador to Britain saying: "Our government's goal to produce an Islamic society has been a failure. At no time in history has the church grown so rapidly as it has in the 1990s". For those who don't know the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox or know about the Reformed and Anglican presence in the Middle East, this book is a worthwhile read.

Scot McKnight on Jesus and Paul

Over at CT, Scot McKnight has an article on Jesus and Paul which is well worth checking out!

I think Scot is hitting at what is quite possible the major issue in biblical theology for evangelicals. How do you read Jesus and Paul together? How does Jesus' kingdom message line up with Paul's theology of justification?

Scot's own solution is: "The gospel is first and foremost about Jesus. Or, to put it theologically, it's about Christology. Behind or underneath both kingdom and justification is the gospel, and the gospel is the saving story of Jesus that completes Israel's story. "To gospel" is to tell a story about Jesus as the Messiah, as the Lord, as the Son of God, as the Savior ... Excuse me for piling on here, but only when we grasp the gospel as the saving story about Jesus that completes Israel's story do we see the profound unity between Jesus and Paul. Both "gospeled" the same gospel because both told the story of Jesus."

Dale Allison: The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus

Over the SBL period I read Dale C. Allison's The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009). I enjoy Allison's books, but I have to confess that I always come away feeling a little depressed at the end. Allison strikes me as such a melancholic author. But in many cases he's right. We simply do not get out of historical Jesus research what we would like to get: historical certainty, a Jesus like us, a Jesus concerned about our concerns, etc. In this book, Allison writes a lot about the relationship between theology and history as well as the mistaken certainty of history in Jesus questing. One thing I took away from the book is that I think Allison makes a key point when he notes that even those who shaped the Jesus tradition were themselves shaped by Jesus. Consequently, the divide between authentic and inauthentic sayings is artificial. Even materials that are judged to be verbally inauthentic, can still summarize Jesus' authentic viewpoint. Allison is also on the money when he notes the pervasive nature of eschatology in Jesus' teaching/theology. He writes: "The matter of Jesus' own christology cannot be disentangled from his eschatological expectations, for in the Synoptics it is chiefly in logia about the last things that his status is most exalted" (p. 90). Next is to read his other new book Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009).

JSPL Blog

I'm glad to announce that the Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters now has its own dedicated blog.

SBL Gk NT meets Old Spice

Here is my video about the SBL Greek New Testament in the tradition of "Old Spice".

Who Chose the Gospels?

I've heard many times now (mainly from Ivy League Gnostics) that the Christian canon was imposed top down by a theologically narrow oligarch of bishops bent on eradicating all traces of diversity from the ecclesial landscape. I think the truth of the matter is that the four Gospels reflect the diversity within the majority of the early church and the so-called "lost Gospels" lost out because they weren't all that popular and weren't all that good to begin with. The Fourfold Gospel arose out of a large consensus of the eastern and western churches and not because a cohort of bishops with the backing of Roman power decreed it by force.

One book on this subject that has come out and I'm looking forward to reading is Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Conspiracy (Oxford: OUP, 2010). According to the blurb:

It is now widely said that the four Gospels rose to prominence only after a long battle within early Christianity, a battle finally won in the fourth century, after the establishment of the Church by Constantine the Great. In Who Chose the Gospels? Charles E. Hill demolishes this claim, providing a more historically accurate, alternative account of how the Church came to acknowledge four, and only four, narratives of the life of Jesus. Hill offers not only an informed critique of recent, overtly "political" readings of early Christian history, but also a more nuanced analysis of how and why, out of all the Gospels written in the early centuries of the Church, just these four "made it" into the Bible. In fact, the author shows that despite the profusion of Gospels, there was wide agreement among church leaders, in diverse regions of the empire, at least from the second century onward, as to the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Thus it was not a conspiracy but common consensus that determined the books of the New Testament.

Post-SBL Smack Down

I'm back from the land of fried chicken (Atlanta) and biblical scholarship (ETS-IBR-SBL). Great time was had by all. I arrived a few days earlier and stayed with my awesome buddy Joshua Jipp, a Ph.D student at Emory Uni. He took me too the Martin Luther King museum that was awesome. We also went out to a peculiar restaurant that specialized in chicken and waffles.

I have to confess that due to meetings with Ph.D students, friends, editors, and well-wishers, I didn't actually make too many sessions this year. At ETS I attended Jason Hood on summaries of Israel's story as a literary device which was great. The only plenary I got to was N.T. Wright on "Justification, Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow" where Wright was in his usual good form. It was a tad defensive and I forgot how many times he used the word "accused" to describe accusations laid against him. The gob smacking revelation was where he appeared to back down on using the phrase "on the basis of" to describe how works relate to justification. The phrase "on the basis of a life lived" is well worn in his works and Wright seems to me to want to mean that in an evidential way. Note Ardel Caneday's remarks on the significance of this change in Wright's wording. What is more, Wright also appeared to give a tacit approval to the concept of "incorporated righteousness" which has been my hobby horse for about seven years now! I think incorporated righteousness is a way of linking the forensic nature of justification to union with Christ and it might be the common ground in the NPP debate. I also liked Tom Schreiner's comment that N.T. Wright is a rocket leading us into the stratosphere, we merely want to change his trajectory slightly.

At the IBR session on Friday night I experienced one of the best academic moments of my short career. N.T. Wright gave a brilliant paper on the kingdom of God and the cross showing how they go together. It was classic Wright with much wit, bustling exegetical tours of texts, theological synthesis, and insightful hints at application. My remit was to respond to Wright which was a hard act to follow. It felt kinda like being asked to do an encore for the Beatles. But I did my best and tried to match him in wit and wisdom. I offered an affirmation of his main point that kingdom and cross together with a survey of Mark 15. I then made a demonstration of the value of the wider Christian tradition since many commentators in ages past (esp. ancient expositions of the Lord's Prayer) have engaged the subject too with much for us to consider. Finally, I suggested a point of integration of his thesis with a futurist eschatology, specifically the Christus Victor motif about the Messiah's future victory. It was a grand time and I really enjoyed the interaction.

At the IBR worship on Sunday, Karen Jobes gave a moving sermon on the theme "Jesus Loves Me This I know" and he words to her mother on her death bed were truly memorable. David deSilva did a great job in leading the worship and he even included my favourite hymn "O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus". I love IBR. The historical Jesus sections with Bock and Webb were absolutely brilliant as well!

At SBL, the Pauline soteriology group focused on cosmology which was good with papers by Martinus de Boer, Beverly Gaventa, and Eddie Adams. My only quibble is that some of these apocalyptic interpreters of Paul seem to have no positive view of Israel and the Law. They are the "religion" that constitutes the antithesis to Paul's new creation. By the way, I should mention a Princeton conference on Romans 5-8 in 2012 that will feature Beverly Gaventa, John Barclay, Douglas Campbell, and my good buddy Ben Myers!

Of course the books at SBL are always a highlight. They leave any bibliophile salivating at the mouth. For me Baylor had the pick of the books with many good volumes on Jesus, orality, and memory which I picked up. A big seller at SBL was Dale C. Allison's volume on Constructing Jesus and a big seller at ETS was Wayne Grudem on God and Politics. I only bought one of these books (you can guess which one).

I wished I had attended more sessions, got to the bibliobloggers dinner, and eaten more fried chicken.

I warn you all. I made another video at SBL. It is about the SBL Greek New Testament in the tradition of "Old Spice" (don't worry, I keep my clothes on).

Time to file away the 60 gazillion business cards I picked up, get some sleep, and read some of the books I bought. Next year in San Diego!

Heading off to ETS/SBL

Not long until I head off to Atlanta, Georgia for ETS/IBR/SBL. I wasn't planning on going this year, but two things drew me in. First, I was asked to be the respondent to N.T. Wright at the Friday evening IBR session (and who could turn that down?). Second, there is a restaurant in Atlanta called Buckner's. I went there 11 years ago and ever since then I've spent many nights laying awake dreamily salivating about their fried chicken, stewed tomato, biscuits, and peppered mashed potato. It was the best chicken I have ever tasted in my life and I've eaten chicken on four different continents. So why go to Altanta: IBR and Fried Chicken!

Things to do and see at ETS/SBL:

1. If you see Michael Bird on his birthday (Thursday, 18 Nov) give him a nice bottle of red wine, nothing sweet, Merlot and Pinot Noir preferred.

2. If you see Ron Hendel at SBL, ask him if he'd like to recommit his life to life to Torah-observance and become a permanent member of the theological interpretation of scripture section.

3. Don't forget to get some extra napkins so that you can wipe up the saliva from drooling at the Hendrickson facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus. Note, this would make a good birthday present. Note also the price of $800.00!

4. If at ETS you see N.T. Wright running towards you at a freakish pace and a mob of angry Presbyterians with pitch forks and burning crosses are chasing him, get the heck out of his way and yell, "Run Tom run!"

5. If you see me lying on the ground clutching my stomach with my belt undone, it means I've just got back from Buckners. Please pump my stomach so I can go back and eat some more fried chicken.

6. If you want to get noticed, stand at the entry to the book exhibit at ETS with a sign saying "Obama is our Messiah, Newt Gingrich is the Anti-Christ," though don't expect to live too long. However, if you do this at SBL, you'll probably get offered an assistant professorship at Vanderbilt or Harvard!

7. Whatever you do, don't bring handouts for your audience, don't mention handouts, don't refer to handouts. In Atlanta, the only people who talk about handouts are Democrats. If you mention handouts at ETS they will lynch you.

8. Come with Michael Bird and Joel Willitts to the Yale Divinity School reception. Every year we pretend to be a gay couple who just got married in Toronto so that they let us in. Works every time!

9. Go to the Scottish Unis Reception, but paint half of your face blue and tell people you are a professor of biblical studies at Glasgow Uni.

10. Make sure you get a free copy of SBLGNT and the free sample issue of Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters.

NT position in Sydney, Australia

From Ben Myers:

United Theological College Sydney is seeking to appoint a lecturer responsible for the teaching and oversight of New Testament Studies. The appointee would also be responsible for supervision of post graduate students in the field and be expected to engage actively in research.

The appointee would be involved in the formation of candidates for specified ministries and would be nominated as an academic associate of the School of Theology, Charles Sturt University. United Theological College is the constituted college for the Uniting Church in the Synod of NSW/ACT. It is also a partner in the School of Theology, Charles Sturt University.

The position is available from 1 July, 2011. Full details of the position may be obtained from e Principal, Revd. Dr Clive Pearson, United Theological College, 16 Masons Dr, North Parramatta NSW 2151 Australia. Phone +61 2 8838 8926 or email utc@nsw.uca.org.au.

Applications for this position close on 21 February 2011.

Surprises in Sudan

CT has a great article about the Church in Southern Sudan. Here's a memorable quote:

The most recent bout of war, from 1983-2005, left some two million dead, and five million in membership of the Episcopal Church of Sudan (ECS). Package that in your next "how to grow your church" bestseller: 1) resist the imperial claims of your own Shar'ia-imposing government, 2) endure genocidal bombings of villages, 3) have millions of refugees suffer thousand-mile walks (including the famous lost boys), and 4) emerge with a church twice the size of the Episcopal Church in the United States. That's not even counting millions of Catholics. "Khartoum tried to swallow the South," Bishop Hilary Garang Deng of the ECS told me. "But Christianity was like a bone, stuck in the throat, causing it to vomit."

Pistis Christou debate at Bible Gateway

Over at BibleGateway are some entries about the "pistis christou" debate with thoughts so far from Tom Schreiner and Craig Blomberg (my own entry is now up).

New Journal Dedicated to Pauline Studies

Dear biblioblogosphere, I'm proud to announce the launch of a new journal dedicated to Pauline studies published by Eisenbrauns. It is called Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters. On the homepage you can find info on subscriptions and submissions. It's edited by myself with Nijay Gupta (see his blog) as the associate editor and we have an international editorial board. The sample issue is available on-line and the inaugural article is by Dr. Susan Grove Eastman (Duke Divinity School) on "Philippians 2:6-11: Incarnation as Mimetic Participation" - quite a treat to read! The next issue of JSPL will include Paul Foster "Eschatology in the Thessalonian Correspondence", Michael Gorman "Justification and Justice", Richard Bell "Paul's Theology of Mind", and a review of Douglas A. Campbell's Deliverance of God by Michael Gorman and Chris Tilling.

My ETS and IBR Papers On-Line

For those interested, here are links to my papers in Atlanta:

ETS- What is there Between Minneapolis and Durham? A Third Way in the Wright-Piper Debate.

IBR - The Crucicentric Kingdom and the Basileianic Cross: A Response to N.T. Wright.

All on Friday 19 November in Atlanta.

Mark 13 and 14-15: United Between Them

Just reading through Dale C. Allison's The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, very interesting read in terms of looking at Allison's intellectual biography that comes through the book.

My interest here is the links that Allison makes between the Marcan eschatological discourse (Mark 13) and the Marcan passion sequence (Mark 14-15). He writes:

"As for the relationship between Mark's account of the crucifixion and Jesus' own expectations, our Evangelist has constructed a striking series of correlations between his eschatological discourse, Mark 13, and the chapters it introduces, 14 as well as 15. 13:24 foretells that the sun will go dark, and this happens when Jesus is on the cross (15:33). 13:2 prophesies that the temple will be destroyed, whereas its veil is torn apart two chapters later (15:38). 13:9 foresees that the disciples will be 'delivered up,' will appear before Jewish councils, will be beaten, and will stand before governors, all of which happens to Jesus soon enough (14:41, 53-65; 15:1-15). 13:35-36 admonishes the disciples to 'watch ... lest the master come and find them sleeping,' and in Gethsemane, after Jesus tells his disciples to 'watch,' he comes and finds them sleeping (14:34-42). These and other parallels reveal that for Mark the eschatological discourse and Passion narrative are of a piece: Jesus' death belongs to eschatology. His demise either foreshadows the latter days, or it inaugurates them" (p. 27).

This observation about the links between Mark 13 and 14-15 is well documented and exploited further (though at times a bit too far) by Peter Bolt's gem of a book The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark's Gospel. Further links can be made with the coming of the Son of Man and the reference to the "abomination of desolation" that Bolt is able to relate to the passion story. It means, in the very least, that Mark 14-15 can be interpreted in light of Mark 13.

Baker Discussion with Dale C. Allison

There is a FB discussion going on about Dale C. Allison's new book Constructing Jesus which is worth checking out. Questions are posed to Allison, Baker selects the best questions, Allison will then be answering those questions (BTW, if your question is chosen you get a free copy of the book).

Translating Rom 1:17 - Bird, Yarbrough, Moo

Over at Bible Gateway there is a discussion on how to translate Rom 1:17. See Colin Hansen's intro here. It includes my own translation and its rationale for how I handle Rom 1:17. Doug Moo literally takes me to task for my understanding of "literal".

Monday with J. Ramsey Michaels

In John 20:31 the debate has been over the textual variants whether "these [things] were written" so that "you might believe" (Aorist subjunctive) or "you might continue to believe" (Present tense). Is the Gospel of John written to convert non-believers (first option) or to strengthen believers (second option). Michaels splits the horns of the dilemma by saying: "[T]he point is rather to encourage readers -whoever they may be - to emulate the faith of those mentioned in the narrative, the anonymous witness at the cross in the first instance, Thomas and his fellow disciples in the locked room in the second. In this way, readers are invited to claim the mantle of honor as 'those who did not see, and believed' (v. 29)."

Bible Translation and NIV10

The NIV10 is now up at Bible Gateway. Brian LePort has a good round up of reviews on the new NIV. Denny Burke links to a video by Doug Moo (head of the translation committee) and Denny offers some commentary about the NIV, NIVI, TNIV, and NIV10 controversy. I should also point out that Bible Gateway/Gospel Coalition has some blog posts on Perspectives on Translation. This includes my own contribution to the topic of "What Makes a Translation Accurate?". The forum will soon post some additional questions with answers from various scholars. Questions to be addressed in the forum include:

(1) What makes a translation accurate?

(2) Should I consider using multiple translations or stick with one?

(3) When and why do we update Bible translations?

(4) How should a translation render Romans 1:17?

(5) How does a translation best convey hilasterion in Romans 3:25?

(6) How should we identify the teachers Paul has in mind in 2 Timothy 2:2?

(7) How should we translate the phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ in such passages as Galatians 2:16?

I had a lot of fun answering these myself, esp. (4) and (7)! More anon on that.