New Book: On Eagles' Wings

Edited by Michael Parsons, David J. Cohen
On Eagles' Wings: An Exploration of Strength in the Midst of Weakness
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008.
Retail Price: $26.00; Web Price: $20.80

This is a volume of practical, scriptural, and contemporary essays exploring the idea of strength in weakness in the context of Christian life and ministry. Biblical scholars, theologians, and Christian ministry practitioners have thought about the biblical paradigm of strength in weakness within their own areas of expertise and interest. Biblical scholars encounter the idea of strength in weakness in both Old and New Testament passages that suggest human weakness and divine strength. The people of Israel, a community reliant on grace, exemplify this theme. Mark's portrayal of Jesus Christ indicates that it is in weakness that Christ saves. Paul's paradigm for ministry suggests the same. Theological chapters engage this teaching of strength in weakness as it surfaces in Luther's life, in Calvin's view of prayer, in Barth's theology, and ultimately in the divine dealing with the world. Pastoral theology demonstrates this theme's foundational significance for a suffering church in its mission to the world as well as the theme's importance for preaching the leading of God's people today. Drawing together scholars from fields of biblical studies, systematic theology, and pastoral theology, On Eagles' Wings questions an overemphasis on power in today's church. The authors propose various ways that ministry and mission may be best engaged with a biblical humility and with reliance on God's grace.

My own essay in this volume is called: “Obi-wan Kenobi, Neo, and Mark’s Narrative Christology,” 51-62.

Enns/Westminster Follow-up

Alot has been blogged on the Enns/Westminster melee at the moment. The most significants parts are:

1. WTS release of the Official Theological Documents surrounding the discussion that took place at WTS-Philly about Enn's book (I think releasing these publically has been a generous act by the seminary and makes their decisions and actions transparent to some degree).

2. Peter Head blogs on: Peter Enns, Westminster, Inerrancy, and Textual Criticism. Peter hits the nail on the head when he says: At a fairly basic level this reflects an important debate about the role of the phenomena of Scripture in clarifying and modifying a doctrine of Scripture derived initially from Scripture's direct self-testimony; with a predictable division between the biblical scholars ('yes the phenomena are really important' - see the Hermeneutics Field Committee's Reply to the HTFC, pp. 28-97) and the systematicians ('phenomena? ha! they didn't pose a problem in the 17th century so why worry about them now?').

3. Ben Myers offers some brief reflections The theological basis of Peter Enns' suspension where he says this: They counter Enns’ whole approach by asserting that 'Scripture’s author is God, who uses actuaries’ or ‘tabularies’ to write His words,' so that 'what men write down is as much God’s own words as if He had written it down without human mediation.' (Am I dreaming? Did a committee of theologians really produce that statement?) You can see why Enns felt it was necessary to write a book like this. If this is right, and I haven't read the whole report yet, then you've got to say that this is simply bizaar. Can we even conceive of Scripture without human mediation? Would God himself directly write 1 Cor. 1.16 about Paul forgetting who he baptized? If one conceives of Scripture as the dictation of divine propositions about theology (i.e. a confession) then that view could work, but it sure doesn't work with what we have before us in narratives, letters, homilies, apocalypses, psalms, proverbs, and prophecies.

4. Ben Byerly offers some insights (as an ex-WTS student) entitled, Lillback's attack on Enns. Ben's not exactly objective on this one (he should probably drop the rhetoric a gear or two), but he does point out some elements of the report that are questionable.

Let me state my interest in this matter. I'm not trying to accuse or exonerate any one. I'm concerned exclusively with what this entire debate means for evangelicals working in the field of biblical studies.

Student's Say the Darnest Things!

My students have given me much comic relief in class in recent days. Here are three examples:

1. Why attractive actors should not play Jesus.

While watching the Gospel of John on DVD in class one of my female students mutters another student, "I have trouble watching this when Jesus looks so cute". This created much amusement, shock, and laughter and was good evidence of why the iconoclasts were probably right. During the scene from John 13 when Jesus disrobes to wash his disciples feet the female student was warned "Don't get too excited now!".

2. Q &A.

Lecturer: What is allegory?
Student: Wasn't he the former Vice-President of America?

3. Satan and Scotland.

Student: Where does Satan come from?
Lecturer: I don't know. Paisley perhaps?
Student: The place or the person?

(Paisley is a city near Glasgow known for its high crime rate and Ian Paisley is the head of the Northern Irish government and is known, more in former times than now, for his intense dislike of Catholics).

Latest CBR 6.3 (2008)

The latest issue of Currents in Biblical Research includes.

David M. Valeta
The Book of Daniel in Recent Research (Part 1) Currents in Biblical Research 2008 6: 330-354. [Abstract] [PDF] [References]

Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle
Jewish Interpretation of Paul in the Last Thirty Years Currents in Biblical Research 2008 6: 355-376. [Abstract] [PDF] [References]

Chris Keith
Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53—8.11) Currents in Biblical Research 2008 6: 377-404. [Abstract] [PDF] [References]

James C. Vanderkam
Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees Currents in Biblical Research 2008 6: 405-431. [Abstract] [PDF] [References]

Book Review: The Solution to the "Son of Man" Problem

Maurice Casey
The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem
LNTS 343; London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Available Amazon.com (US) and Continuum (UK)
My thanks to T&T Clark/Continuum for a review copy!

Maurice Casey is a foremost expert on the relation of Aramaic to the Gospels and the dizzying debates surrounding the ‘Son of Man’ title. This volume is a significant publication that summarizes and expounds further Casey’s Aramaic approach to the Son of Man problem.

In chapter one, ‘The State of Play’ Casey gives a historical survey of how ho huios tou anthropou has been translated and interpreted from the Patristic period down through to the current scholarly setting. He notes the frequent attempt to link the phrase to Dan. 7.13, its christological use as an affirmation of Jesus as human in the early church, the development of the Menschensohnbegriff (son of man concept) especially in Germany climaxing in the notion of a primordial myth, and sometimes even as a referent to Jesus as a Son of Adam. He sets this in contrast to semitic approaches to the phrase beginning with Hugo Grotius, that identified the underlying Aramaic as idiomatic for ‘man’.

In chapter two Casey provides a study of 53 Aramaic texts drawn from inscriptions, rabbinic literature, Syriac texts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Casey argues that Aramaic was a relatively stable language and that the ‘son of man’ idiom was a general statement for ‘man’ and could be used in a definite or indefinite state. He emphasizes that the generality of a given saying may vary considerably as bar (e)nash(a) sayings can refer to the speaker, a group of people including the speaker, or to someone else based on the context. This is a welcomed corrective to Vermes.

In chapter three, Casey sets his sights on criticizing the ‘Son of Man’ concept (Menschensohnbegriff) and he engages in a study of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra 13 towards that end. He argues that the Son of Man in Dan. 7.13 is not a Messiah but is a symbol for the Saints of the Most High and what is genuinely interesting is that he surveys the Syrian Christian tradition which located Daniel 7 against the backdrop of the Hasmonean struggle against the Seleucid dynasty. Casey also argues for an Aramaic tradition underlying 1 Enoch and that the ‘son of man’ in 1 Enoch refers to Enoch himself and not to a Messiah. He similarly argues, based on textual considerations, that the term ‘Son of Man’ is not used in 4 Ezra.

In chapter four, an Aramaic reconstruction of six authentic sayings is given (Mk. 2.27-28; 9.11-13; 10.45; 14.21; Mt. 11.19/Lk. 7.34; Mt. 12.32/Lk. 12.10 with Mk. 3.28-28). Casey argues that these sayings have a Sitz im Leben in the life of Jesus and they only make sense when the original verses are reconstructed in Aramaic and this provides an ‘overwhelming argument’ for his particular perspective on the Son of Man materials. The following chapters contain Casey’s reconstruction and examination of several units including Mk. 2.1-12 (chapter five), Mt 8.19-20/Lk 9.57-58 (chapter six), Lk. 12.8-9/Mt. 10.32-33 and Mk. 8.38 (chapter seven), Lk. 22.48 (chapter eight), the passion predictions (chapter nine), and some eschatological dominical sayings (chapter ten) with attention paid to their significance for the Son of Man debate and the historical Jesus.

Chapter eleven covers the evolution of the Aramaic bar (e)nash(a) into the Greek ho huios tou anthropou. Casey examines the translation process of authentic sayings, the midrashic creation of new sayings, and the rewriting of authentic sayings in order to create new Son of Man sayings. The Greek expression was given to bar (e)nash(a) for sayings that refer predominantly to Jesus. The Greek word for ‘son’ huios was a natural translation of bar or ben. In regards to the definite articles in the Greek, the first definite article ho makes reference to Jesus emphatic while the second definite article tou is more or less generic. This creative outburst resulted in the invention of a christological title to show how Jesus himself was indicated in the original Aramaic idiom. This titular sense was enhanced by Mark’s appeal to Dan. 7.13 to create two parousia sayings in Mk. 13.26 and 14.62. Casey’s burden is to show that an idiomatic usage of bar (e)nash(a) would not necessarily lead to a translation of ho anthropos or ho huios anthropou. I tend to think, following Bauckham and Hurtado, that the double articular Greek construction, inelegant as it is, was given to emphasize the particular emphasis that Jesus attached to the Aramaic phrase. I would also ask, however, if Mark can cite the anarthrous hos huios anthropou on Dan. 7.13 LXX to create a Christological title, then why cannot someone earlier in the tradition or even Jesus do the same based on the Aramaic? Nothing necessitates a Marcan provenance for the connection of the Son of Man (in Greek or Aramaic) with Daniel 7.

Casey goes over the Johannine Son of Man sayings in chapter twelve. He concludes that the Son of May sayings in the Gospel of John are essentially taken over from the Synoptics and incorporated into the author’s midrashic use of Scripture. ‘Son of Man’ is a title that discloses the humanity of Jesus and none of the sayings are based on an underlying Aramaic source.

In his conclusion Casey emphasizes once more the apparent problem of the Son of Man debate is caused by ‘a massive degree of ignorance compounded by ideological bias’ (314) and he then proceeds to summarize the various chapters of the book.

Along with Mogens Müller’s book, Casey’s volume is among the first ports of call for anyone wrestling with the Son of Man problem. It caps a life time of study on the subject and show cases Casey’s impressive command of all the relevant primary and secondary literature (thankfully all Aramaic and German quotes are translated). I suspect that scholarship has finally taken notice, at least in part, to what Casey, Lindars, and Vermes (as well as those before them from Grotius to Wellhausen) have been saying: the Aramaic idiom needs to be factored into any solution to the Son of Man problem. There are discernible strengths to this volume particularly in Casey’s penetrating critique of the Menschensohnbegriff and I found his chapter on the formulation of the passion predictions to be highly illuminating.

There are three major criticisms I have with this book. First, Casey often derides those who write about the Son of Man from the Christian tradition (German Lutherans are a preferred target). I do not for a minute deny that presuppositions and theologically informed views have influenced these scholars, however, Casey nowhere acknowledges his own presuppositions and how they influence him. The implied author of this book (i.e. Casey’s representation of himself) is that of an objective and secular critic who has come to liberate us from the shackles of theologically loaded interpretations of the Son of Man. But I suggest that the existence of such an ideal objective and impartial author is just as mythical as the existence as the ‘primordial son of man’ known to occasionally haunt the lecture rooms of German universities. Casey’s dislike for orthodox Christianity is easily documented (see his responses to S.E. Porter, N.T. Wright in various articles and his monograph on John’s Gospel) and one wonders if this atheological aesthetic has impacted some of his conclusions (i.e. he likes to make sure nothing supports orthodox christology!). This leads to my next second point, that Casey has not definitively refuted a link between the idiom bar (e)nash(a) and the kebar enash in Dan. 7.13. Let me preface that by saying that not every Son of Man reference in the Gospels is necessarily a quote or allusion to Dan. 7.13, and they may simply be an expression of an Aramaic idiom as Casey rightly notes (e.g. Mk. 2.10). What is more, the authenticity of several texts (e.g. Mk. 13.26, 14.62) are complex in their own right and although I do not subscribe to Casey’s view that they are secondary formulations that refer to Jesus’ parousia, I recognize the validity of the tradition-historical questions that he raises. What is more, ‘Son of Man’ is not a technical title for ‘Messiah’. Nonetheless, Casey objects to combining the Aramaic idiom with the human figure of Dan. 7.13 on the grounds that, the ‘one like a son of man’ is an ‘abstract symbol of the Saints of the Most High’ (p. 30). He also rejects the messianic interpretation attached to the Son of Man expression as well. In response: (1) The symbolism of Daniel 7 uses metaphors that are plastic and oscillate between being inclusive and exclusive. For instance, the beasts clearly symbolize the four pagan kingdoms (e.g. 7.23), but they also symbolize the four kings (7.17). So a beast can symbolize both a kingdom and an individual king. Can we say the same about the ‘one like a son of man’ who is the heavenly counterpart of the four beasts and the little arrogant horn? He clearly symbolizes the ‘Saints of the Most High’ but given the royal description and royal role that he executes can we see here an implied reference to a Jewish king? Casey is forced to regard the beasts as a symbol (a king) for a symbol (kingdoms) and then deny that the symbols can be individual despite the fact that an individual interpretation is given in 7.17! (2) The fact is that there arose a tradition of messianic exegesis of Daniel 7 in 4Q246, 1 Enoch, the Gospels, and 4 Ezra which indicates that a messianic interpretation of Dan. 7.13 is both primitive and possible at the time of Jesus. Third, Casey’s Aramaic reconstructions are suggestive of semitic sources underlying the Gospels in certain places and he probably bring us as close to the words of Jesus as we can go. However, he occasionally gives the impression that he is providing us with the actual words of Jesus as he often makes a point why Jesus preferred one word over another. This is perhaps true for one or two short proverbial sayings (like maybe Mk. 10.45), but what Casey has really done is reconstructed a possible Aramaic tradition lying beneath the Greek text of the Gospels. That tradition is likely to be a paraphrase, summary, digest and gist of what Jesus said depending on what one makes of the oral tradition. For the most part (and I allow some exceptions) the Jesus tradition, regardless of what language we find it in, contains the ipsissima vox not the ipsissima verba of Jesus.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of Casey’s volume is a healthy reminder that all scholars of the Greek New Testament would do well if they also master the semitic languages of Palestine, the Hebrew Bible, and the eastern church.

Scot McKnight: A Community Called Atonement

I've just got around to re-reading Scot McKnight's volume A Community Called Atonement from the Living Theology series edited by Tones Jones (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007). To put this book in context, the great writings on the atonement by a previous generation of great scholars (Leon Morris, J.I. Packer, and John Stott) focused on defending key doctrines like penal substitution, propitiation, and justification over and against an onslaught of assaults. However, today the battle ground has shifted some what. The doctrine wars have been fought and won (for the most part) within evangelicalism, but now the challenge is "what difference does it make?". The question evangelicals in their 20s and 30s are asking is not, does the Bible teach penal substitution, but what mileage does one get out of believing in it? A generation of young Christians (and I count myself among them) are dissatisfied with bumper sticker slogans like "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" which sounds like an apology for a person with right doctrinal beliefs but lives no different from unchurched Harry or pagan Peter. That's a fraud and pomo folk can smell it a mile off. My Theology lecturer at college once to the story of a church that held an evangelistic outreach event but the congregation failed to invite anyone to it. When a survey was done to find out why no-one invited their non-Christian friends along, one person answered that "the gospel was not working in my life so I thought it would be a sham to invite someone else to consider it". This, I reckon, is the problem; what difference does the atonement make in life and living? Scot's book then is a welcomed corrective on two fronts: (a) he situates the atonement in the wider span of redemptive-history as he relates the cross to the Adam/Israel story, to Jesus' kingdom message, to the resurrection, and to Pentecost, and he also shows theTrinitarian nature of the atonement as well; and (b) he demonstrates how the atonment is transformative at both the personal and communal level.

Scot clearly believes in penal substitution (PS). The question is whether PS is merely one club in the golf bag, or whether PS is the golf bag itself from which the various clubs are drawn out of. Scot argues that no single theory of the atonement is the "fairest one of all" and all are part of the golfer's (i.e. Christian's soteriolgoical) repertoirre. I am sympathetic to the arguments of I. Howard Marshall, Thomas Schreiner, and Mike Ovey et. al. that PS is the golf bag itself or the central atonement theme which drives all the others like Passover sacrifice, Christus Victor, Reconciliation, etc. However, the looming doubt in my mind is created by the Book of Acts where PS does not appear at all, rather, Luke focuses on forgiveness of sins, status reversal, and the gift of the Spirit. Why does this deposit of apostolic preaching contain so little reference to the cross let alone PS if PS is THE central doctrine of the New Testament? Scot is fairly well balanced overall here. He rejects the allegation that PS amounts to child abuse but also asks advocates of PS to listen to their critics. He adds that the atonement needs to be orientated in the Trinitarian life of God and the atonement reflects both God's wrath and love. For Scot though, the bag that holds all the clubs together (recapitulation, ransom, satisfaction, substitution, representation, and penal substitution) is what he calls Identification and Incorporation which he gleams from Heb. 2.14-18 and is probably best understood as a modified verions of the recapitulation theory.

On justification, Scot maintains that justification is indeed "forensic" and he freely uses the concept of "imputation". What is added by Scot, however, are his observations that justification relates to the story of Adam-Israel-Jesus, it brings Gentiles into one family with Jews, justification is part of God's act of making the whole world right, and he gives a polite nod to the New Perspective on Paul in so far as that justification needs to be given a more relational understanding.

The final section of the book, "Atonement as Praxis: Who Does Atonement?" is worth the price of the book and is well worth reading if you're getting ready for Easter. Scot covers topics such as Atonement and Fellowship, Atonement and Justice, Atonement and Mission, Atonement and Living the Story, and Atonement and Baptism, Eurcharist, and Prayer. So put down your Left Behind novel and stop watching "Lost" and read this section if anything this year.

There are one or two things I'd tweak in this book. For instance, I'd like more on sin as rebellion and I wonder if Scot pushes the broken eikon thing a bit too far at times. But otherwise this is a classic resource on the atonement, it is eminently readable but certainly not simplistic. Anyone interested in asking the question "what difference does it make?" should read this book.

Pastoral Reflections on the Pastoral Epistles

For the last week I've been reading through the Pastoral Epistles (PE) in my nightly reading routine. Several things continue to stand out for me:

1. About two years after I became a Christian I was being posted to Townsville in northern Australia (a divine punishment for making jokes about how fat pregnant women were). I was in a young church with a young pastor, but I was well discipled and the young pastor instilled in me a love for Christian learning . He introduced me to apologetics which lead in turn to theology and then of course to biblical studies (in other words, blame this guy for all my heinous crimes). I shall never forget that just before I was about to leave, I was given as a farewell gift a copy of Millard Erickson's Christian Theology. And on the inside was inscribed the words of 1 Tim. 4.16: "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers". Those words have stuck with me ever since and it is wise counsel to give any young person heading off from the watching eye of their parents, family, and church.

2. The PE are often regarded as about being about doctrine, doctrine, and doctrine. Now that is true to some degree, but love, faith, and godliness are all interrelated to the "right" belief as well. Illustrative of this is 2 Tim. 1.13 where Timothy is exhorted: "What you have heard from me, keep as the pattern of sounding teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus". Doctrine without love or faith is a cerebral cult of the mind.

3. The PE emphasizes salvation by grace. We all know Tit. 3.5 as the sola gratia proof text. But consider the wider context: "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good". The trinitarian framework here is most striking as is the link with "washing" which could denote regeneration or baptism (or both). We should note that doing what is good is one of the immediate goals of salvation by grace. I would also add 2 Tim. 1.8-9: "But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy life - not because of anything we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace." Again this is clearly teaching salvation by grace alone, but the call to salvation is also a call to a holy life. In my mind, all of this underscores the transformative power of grace, not just as something believed in, but something that is relied upon in our lives.

4. The PE have somethings to say about gender roles (e.g. 1 Tim. 2.11-15) and the inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3.16), but the hinge upon which the theological and pastoral exhortation of the PE turn is the gospel (1 Tim. 1.11; 2 Tim. 1.8; 2.8). What was "entrusted" to Paul and is now given to Timothy and Titus is the gospel (1 Tim. 1.11; 6.20; 2 Tim. 1.14; Tit. 1.3). In my mind, the centre of pastoral ministry, Christian discipleship, and even evangelicalism is not a specific view of Scriptural authority (i.e. infallibility or inerrancy) or a specific view of gender (e.g. patriarchy or egalitarianism) but the gospel. The mark of the true Pastor is how he (or she) articulates, proclaims, guards, lives, and passes on the gospel of God.

5. My favourite verses in the PE has to be 1 Tim. 5.23: "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses". At the end of a long week in the labour of the Lord I look most forward to a nice glass of Aussie Merlot on a Friday night.

There endeth the lesson!

Evangelicalism: Sacrament and Word

Is evangelicalism too logocentric in its worship services? In Tom Wright's lecture at Calvin College on the Sacraments (see the clip below), he makes an interesting point that in some churches there is such a focus on the preached Word and on the centrality of the pulpit that the sacraments are pushed to one side with the result that the service becomes more like that of a Mosque with all Word and no Sacrament! Now, Wright can't be accused of having a low view of preaching, consider the following quote: "A church without sermons will soon have a shrivelled mind, then a wayward heart, next an unquiet soul, and finally a misdirected strength" (Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship [London: SPCK, 1997], xi). I do get what he's saying since I've been in (= orchestrated and lead) services where the whole worship and prayer session is merely an extended overture to the sermon. I've also been in churches where the eucharist or Lord's Supper is served at every service (esp. Anglican and Church of Christ congregations) and if often becomes very mechanical and meaningless. I've also noticed that some liberal churches include more Bible readings than some "Bible believing" churches. I do wonder then how one integrates this all together: Prayer, Sacrament, Praise, and Word. Perhaps it's time that evangelicals (re)discovered liturgy.

Friday is for Ad Fontes

Every Friday night I chill out with a curry, a bottle of read wine, and some primary source reading. Recently I've been reading through Plutarch's Roman Lives which has been quite enjoyable. Tonight was life of Pompeius Magnus who celebrated triumphs from three different continents and in one of them Aristobolus of Judea was lead in captive during his triumph.

"Banners paraded at the head of the procession showed the countries and peoples over which the triumph was being celebrated. They were as follows: Pontus, Armenia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Media, Colchis, the Iberians, the Albanians, Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, the inhabitants of Phoenican and Palestine, Judea, Arabia, and all the pirates who had been defeated on the land and at sea. In the course of these campaings he had captured at least 1, 000 strongholds, about 900 towns and cities, and 800 pirate ships, and had founded thirty-nine new colonies."

So, what did you accomplish by age forty?

Nazarene Rap

This is just too hilarious to pass up!



HT: Ben Myers

Infallibility vs. Inerrancy: Reformation 21

Over at Reformation 21, there is a review article by Martin Downes entitled, Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? A critique of A.T.B. McGowan's proposal for evangelicals to reject inerrancy which deals with Andrew McGowan's book The Divine Spiration of Scripture.

I don't want to offer a counter-response to Downes' article as I'll leave it to Andrew to respond himself if he chooses to (although I don't think that the central focus of Andrew's article is against inerrancy as much as it is reconfiguring a doctrine of Scripture as part of a doctrine of God). But a number of questions do come to my mind. Now before I press ahead let me say that I ask these questions as one who is committed to the authority and veracity of Scripture. I write as one who regards the Word of God as "true and trustworthy" and I have laboured elsewhere to show that the Gospels are historically reliable accounts of Jesus' career. In my mind, the Bible teaches history, theology, and ethics and it is "true" on all three counts. I teach my students that the goal of their instruction is that they would know better the Word of God and the God of the Word!

(1) To what extent is it legitimate to derive a theology of Scripture from a priori inferences about God? Does "God is X and therefore Scripture is Y" constitute a reasonable argument? At one level I want to say "yes" as I would maintain that the faithfullness of God means that his Word will also be faithful and reliable. But does an a priori inference allow us to determine what the phenemenon of Scripture must have been and to define further the standards upon which its "faithfulness" must conform to? I am not so sure on that one. (2) The WCF 1.5 and 1689 LBC 1.1 all use the phrase infallible to define the veracity of Scripture (the Anglican 39 Art. 6 speaks of "sufficiency"). Does a preference for "infallible" over "inerrant" constitute a doctrinal abberration? Is the entire Reformed Tradition, as exemplified by the confessions, an insufficient theology of Scripture? As I read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy the impression I get is exactly that: infallibility alone is insufficient (see esp. art. 11 and 19.III.C). I remain concerned and confused as to why persons, however polite and well intentioned, imply that my Reformed Baptist heritage that has been around for 400 years just ain't good enough any more (and the same is true for Presbyterians)! It was good enough in 1689 and it is jolly well good enough now! Can one become a liberal by holding fast to 400 years of tradition? (3) Is there any cultural or historical contingency to the Warfield/Henry articulation of inerrancy? Keep in mind that inerrancy was articulated during the height of the fundamentatlist versus liberal controversy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There was the "Battle for the Bible" in North America which was really about the struggle between Modernity and Revealed Religion. Christianity was subjected to a critique based on the assumptions of post-Enlightenment philosophical rationalism. Did Christians such as Warfield and Henry try to defend Scripture by using the same tools of philosophical rationalism such as a foundationalist epistemology and objectivist views of historical knowledge? Has the inerrancy of the autographa always been the rubric upon which Christians at all times, in all places, and in all ages have articulated the authority and veracity of Scripture, or was it a new way of defending the Bible against an atheistic worldview birthed out of of the rationalist impulse of the time in the particular setting of North America? In other words, is inerrancy a "catholic" doctrine?

The Chicago Statement provides the best exposition of inerrancy to date and one that tries to nuance the term where it needs to be. If I had to choose between "errancy" and "inerrancy", I'd choose inerrancy any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Still, I am reminded of the words of Howard Marshall who said that if you need fifteen pages to define one word, may be you should just get a new word. I have an old explanation in mind: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation ... All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." (LBC 1.1-2).

New Book on Calvin

Thanks to my friend, Joe Mock, for telling me about this book, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ by J. Todd Billings (Oxford: OUP, 2008). Book is available here. The blurb reads:

Is the God of Calvin a fountain of blessing, or a forceful tyrant? Is Calvin's view of God coercive, leaving no place for the human qua human in redemption? These are perennial questions about Calvin's theology which have been given new life by Gift theologians such as John Milbank, Graham Ward, and Stephen Webb. J. Todd Billings addresses these questions by exploring Calvin's theology of "participation in Christ." He argues that Calvin's theology of "participation" gives a positive place to the human, such that grace fulfills rather than destroys nature, affirming a differentiated union of God and humanity in creation and redemption. Calvin's trinitarian theology extends to his view of prayer, sacraments, the law, and the ecclesial and civil orders. In light of Calvin's doctrine of participation, Billings reframes the critiques of Calvin in the Gift discussion and opens up new possibilities for contemporary theology, ecumenical theology, and Calvin scholarship as well.

New Blog 21

I'm glad to announce that the Presbyterian Theological College in Sydney has its own blog. PTC-Sydney has some great people, they often get some great speakers in such as Don Carson, Tremper Longman, Bill Dumbrell, and Paul Barnett, and the annual the Eliza Ferrie Lecture is always worth attending if you're in Sydney at the time. I love the motto of the college: "developing leaders who understand, communicate, and live out the Scriptures in order to serve God's people".

Latest JSHJ 6.1 (2008)

The latest issue of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus includes:

"Did the Historical Jesus Prohibit All Oaths? -- Part 2", by John P. Meier.

"A Response to John P. Meier's 'Did the Historical Jesus Prohibit All Oaths?'" by Donald A. Hagner.

"The Prohibition of Oaths and Contra-scriptural Halakhot: A Response to John P. Meier" by Jonathan Klawans.

"The Historical Jesus and Oaths: A Response to Donald A. Hagner and Jonathan Klawans" by John P. Meier.

"A Prophet is Rejected in His Home Town (Mark 6.4 and Parallels): A Study in the Methodological (In)Consistency of the Jesus Seminar" by William John Lyons.

"Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition" by James D. G. Dunn.

"Morton Smith as M. Madiotes: Stephen Carlson's Attribution of 'Secret Mark' to a Bald Swindler" by Allan J. Pantuck and Scott G. Brown.

HT: Bob Webb

Pericope adulterae

Over at CT there is an article on the Pericope adulterae: Is 'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone' Biblical? by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra. It includes this quote:

"Such judgments [about the inauthenticity of the pericope] raise questions about what words like canonicity and inspiration mean for evangelicals. If we reserve the word inspired for the text in the earliest manuscripts, yet accept that other material (such as the pericope adulterae) should be included in our biblical canon, are we implying that select biblical passages may be canonical yet not inspired? If so, what should we do with this distinction?"

My questions are:

1. Would you preach this text? Me, personally, no! But it is a charming story about forgiveness and grace and I can refer to it on those terms.

2. How do you explain this to Christians without undermining their confidence in the Scripture? Some Christians have a view of Scripture that is totally ignorant of the area of textual criticism and they get squirmy with the questions it raises (this is why there are Textus Receptus-folk and KJV-only fruit cakes in the first place). In other words, they accept the authority of the text but have never wrestled with the phenomenon of the text. This is why pastors should run an adult Sunday school study on textual criticism.

I have to say that some time ago I read a comment at the Christianity Today news site where one unfortunate chappy claimed that "using an Alexandrian text will lead to an Alexandria spirituality, read your King James Bible!". In making an educated guess of this chappy's position I would love to ask, "Does using a text reconstructed by a Catholic humanist professor lead to a Catholic spirituality?" (immense apologies to my Catholic friends!).

The Teacher-al Tension

This week in my Paul course we are discussing Paul's eschatological tension. This post is rather like a therapy session as I feel the pressure of the end of the semester and the concomitant grading task and what I will call "the teacher-al tension".

.

While I am only teaching three courses, and this is a light load for some university profs, I have a total of about a 100 students. I have chosen to offer mostly essay based exams, because I think that these type of exams provide a better indication of the level of comprehension than do standardized type exams (e.g. Scantron). I do use the latter, but less often. This philosophy however creates a tremendous amount of work for me especially during the end of the semester when these are combined with grading research papers.

.

I find myself feeling the pressure of writing projects that can't be touched to say nothing of contributing to the blog. I sat this morning and wrote in my journal about the handful of smallish things I have going that are forced to the the back burner because of my teaching responsibilities. This is a constant tension for me and I am sure that I'm not alone. With a young family there is only so much time left for work and as our semester draws to a close in just a couple of weeks, I find that all my time is taken grading research papers and exams.

.

It is very difficult task indeed to live in the tension of teaching and writing. Still, it is a gift from God to even have the tension. Thanks be to God!

Gospel: Implication and Content

I've been listening to N.T. Wright's interview at the Asbury Theological Seminary Chapel which was most interesting (esp. his response to John Piper's book) with Ben Witherington III chiming in as well. But one thing that grabbed my attention is Wright's articulation of Rom. 3.27-30:

"Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (ESV)"

Notice the beginning of v. 29 "Or is God the God of the Jews only?" which begins with the disjunctive particle ē. Clearly here an ethnocentric soteriology is the antithesis to justification by faith. Let me contrast that with Mark Dever's T4G address cited below, which makes confronting ethnocentrism in the church an implication of justification. There Dever maintained that one can get justification right but get the implication wrong. This is why in conservative circles in the USA you had Christians who believed in the gospel but also believed in racial segregation - they just got the implications wrong. But what Paul is saying is much, much stronger than that, according to Paul you cannot believe in justification by faith and an ethnocentric (or segregationist) ecclesiology because they are mutually exclusive, hence the "or"! Paul poses to his audience an argument of alternatives and they asked to choose one option. Now keep in mind, Dever and Wright both agree that ethnocentrism and segregation in the church are out of step with the gospel, the question is how does that principle relate to the gospel (or more accurately to justification). Rather than say that justification is a vertical event between God and human beings with horizontal implications for human relationships, I'd rather say that justification is both a vertical and horizontal event where the content and context are not neatly distinguished. That said, I think Paul premises the latter on the former but without reducing the horizontal elements purely to an implication, since the horiztonal and vertical elements of justification are bound up together even if one has a logical priority.

Father God!

The prayerful cry of every Christian is "Abba, Father". I don't know of any song that captures more profoundly the feelings of utter dependence and inexpressible joy in the knowledge of our heavenly Father than this song:



I sing my girls to sleep every night singing this song and it is in my top three favourite worships songs. The doxologically challenged need not bother, you won't get it.

Asiatic Rhetoric

In his Roman Lives, Plutarch notes the popularity of Asiatic rhetoric (usually a more flowery and bombastic form of rhetorical delivery than its Attic counter-part) where he says of Mark Antony: "He adopted the so-called Asiatic style of speaking, which was flourishing with particular vigour just then and which bore a considerable resemblance to his life, in that it was kind of showy whinnying, filled with vain prancing and capricious ambition" (2).

How Not to Improve Your Theological German

If want to improve your theological German then don't bother watching this clip (unless you have some strange affection for cheesey 1980's video clips).