Why Did Paul Persecute the Church?

On why did Paul persecute the church, here is an idea from Mark Nanos that I think must feature in an answer in some way:

'That policy is the one for which he claims to be persecuted later, namely, for not “still” preaching circumcision of non-Jews (Gal 5:11). While Paul championed this move, he probably did not initiate it. Rather, since before the dramatic revelation of Christ in him and call to bring this message to the nations, he was the most vicious opponent of this policy, it is likely that this policy of including non-Jews as full members was a propositional truth for Christ based groups that predated his change of course. If so, what motivated Paul’s zealous was not a failure by Jewish members of the Christ groups to observe Torah per se. They were observing, for example, Sabbath and dietary customs, and circumcising their sons. At issue was a change of policy based on an alternative interpretation of Torah for defining the inclusion of non-Jews as full and equal members based on the claim that God has in Christ initiated the age to come kingdom with just such expectations for embers of the rest of the nations to join alongside Israel in the worship of the One God'.

Mark Nanos, ‘Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul's Judaism,’ in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on Paul’ in Mark Given, ed. Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, forthcoming 2009). See an on-line version here.

Bird and Crossley on TV

James Crossley and I appeared together on Premiere Christian Radio's TV on demand channel where we discussed our book How Did Christianity Begin? You can watch the discussion here (goes for 23 minutes).

More New Blogs from Australia on Science and Theology

I have come across yet another Aussie blogger who is into all things Science, Philosophy, and Theology, and the engagement between the three. Roger Morris, who a medical doctor on the Sunshine Coast (I've been there and believe me it is appropriately named!), has started a blog called, Faithinterface.com which he introduces as: "The purpose of this blog is completely selfish - to allow me to bang on about my great love, the interface between science, philosophy and Christian theology. But it is also an opportunity to engage in discussions about these matters with others of all worldviews within the blogosphere. "

New Blog on Theology, Science, and Culture

Ross McKenzie is one of the world's leading quantum physicists and he's also a Christian and an Australian (and let's face it, it doesn't get much better than that!). Anyways, he has a blog called: Solio Deo Gloria: Thoughts on Theology, Science, and Culture which is worth checking out. He is also associated with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

Book Notice: Binding the Strong Man - Ched Myers

Ched Myers
Binding the Strong Man: A Political reading of Mark's Story of Jesus
(2nd ed.; New York: Maryknoll, 2008)
Available from Amazon.com

When I was in theological college I had a revolutionary experience where I decided to leave Paul for Jesus in my immediate studies. I had naively thought that Paul had all the good theology and the Gospels (except perhaps for John) were merely the warm-up act for Paul. It was in a class on "Jesus and the Gospels" with, of all people, a pastoral studies lecturer that exposed us to study of Gospel of Mark with a social-scientific slant, it was there that the Gospels came alive to me in a fresh new way and I saw Jesus in ways that I never imagined. Since that time, Mark has always been my favourite Gospel and I have nearly twenty Gospel of Mark commentaries in my library. One book that I have found immensely stimulating is Ched Myer's liberationist reading Binding the Strong Man. Now I am no liberation theologian, but there are elements of this book that do make you really, really think about the social location of Jesus and Mark's readers and the socio-political implications of the Gospel story. In this 20 year anniversary edition are a number of testimonies by people as to how Ched Myer's book has influenced them. What caught my eye was this comment from Christopher Rowland of Oxford Uni:

"What I think is so striking about Ched Myer's Binding the Strong Man is that it's apparent on every page that it is written by a person whose understanding comes from within the struggles of life, and who knows, mutatis mutandis, what it is to follow Jesus 'in the way' and to understand the Bible out of that context. Ched understands something about the text, because he knows that what it means to be a follower of Jesus puts one in a position of being a nonconformist and an activist. If you're not, then one will miss things about the text and not grasp the wisdom and insight which is hidden in this strange story of a marginal Jew which we now as the Gospel of mark" (p. xliii).

Myers identifies three subplots in the Gospel of Mark: (1) There is Jesus' creation of a new community built around himself and his messainic preaching; (2) There is Jesus' mission to the crowds who teem with the poor and oppressed; and (3) There is Jesus' confrontation with the powers that held Israel in their dark grip. Let me give an example of Myer's approach with his summary of Mark 2.16-28:

"Jesus has challenged the ideological hegemony of the scribal and priestly classes by underminning their control of the redemptive media of purity and debt codes. This alone would be a programmatic statement, but Mark is not done. He now turns to the Pharisaic movement, which represented a different - though in Mark's view equally problematic - approach to the ideological maintenance of the people of God. I have noted above how the Pharisaic sect, which included both priests and scribes, pursued a program to extend the imperatives of the symbolic order to the masses while themselves following a rigorous practice of purity. Their attempts at building a popular base put them in direct competition with Mark's community. In the next three episodes Jesus' direct action campaign confronts the central tenets of the Pharisaic holiness code: their rules of table fellowship, pulic piety, and maintenance of the Sabbath" (pp. 157-58).

I should add another fairly unknown work on Mark that is a little gem and that is Herman C. Waetjen's volume A Reordering of Power. When you read his commentary on the passion narratives you will need a hankerchief or a kleenex nearby.

Friday is for Ad Fontes - Ebionites

In Against Heresies 1.16.2, Irenaeus says o thte Ebionites:

"Those who are called Ebionites, then, agree that hte world was made by God; but their opinions with regard to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates they use the Gospel according to Matthew only and repudiate the apostle Paul, saying that he was apostate from the Law. As to the prophetical writings, they do their best to expound them diligently; they practice circumcision, perseere in the customs which are according to the Law an dpractice a Jewish way of life, even adoring Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."

Our knowledge of the Ebionites is fragmentary and entirely derived from heresiologies of the early church (esp. Irenaeus and Epiphanius). I for one doubt that there ever was a guy called "Ebion" who kicked the whole thing off. The Ebionites take their names from the Hebrew word for "poor". What is often touted about the Ebionites is two things: (1) They stand in a genealogical relationship with the pre-70 AD Jerusalem church, and (2) Their christology also reflects the christology of the Jerualem church which was non-divine, no virgin birth, and adoptionist, posessionist (Jesus was possessed by the Holy Spirit) and perhaps even angelomorphic. In which case, by the end of the second century (so it goes) the earliest christology is now deemed heretical - as argued by Dunn, Goulder, and Ludemann.

I am not convinced by that. While I think the story of the flight of Jewish Christians to Pella shortly before the Roman siege of Jerusalem is authetic (Eusebius, HE 3.5.3 [see the article on this by Craig Koester]), I doubt the existence of an apostolic line of succession from Pella to Irenaus' account of the Ebionites (Irenaeus may himself be dependent upon an updated version of Justin Martyr's Syntagma). The Ebionites may have evolved out of the post-Pella survivors, but I wouldn't necessarily say that they preserved a specific Jewish Christian line that goes back to Jerusalem of the 30s and 40s. I am far from convinced that the Jerusalem church was (1) anti-Pauline as there was a diversity of views of Paul ranging from individuals such as Peter, James, Barnabas, and John Mark; and (2) I don't see any substantial evidence of an adoptionist or possession christology in the Jerusalem church. Those that try to pin adoptionism on use of Psalms 2, 110 and Rom. 1.3-4 are, I think, barking up the wrong tree.

Around the Blogsphere

At the T&T Clark blog, Chris Roberts introduces his book Creation and Covenant about a theology of marriage from the Patristic period to the present and he writes: "In the end, the research for this book lead me to embrace orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I hope that people who sympathize with this perspective will appreciate the book for its clear restatement of often under-developed and latent ideas within the tradition. Meanwhile, I hope that those who disagree with my conclusions - such as the undecided types that I once was, and the liberals with whom I interact - will feel like my book raises the standard of conversation for everyone, and helping them in particular to make better and more precise arguments."

Ken Schenck of "Methodists-R-Us" is blogging through N.T. Wright's new book. Darrell Bock gives a review of Bart Ehrman's latest rant against belief. Judy Redman reviews How Did Christianity Begin? (with a smiley face from Steph in the comments!). Trevin Wax is starting to read Introducing Paul. Peter Enns is interviewed by Zondervan (on you.tube) about how C.S. Lewis has influenced him.

Scott Clark starts his series explaining Paedo-Baptism. I liked his final quote, " Historic practice, however, suggests a certain presumption in favor of infant baptism. Nevertheless, tradition alone is not sufficient reason for any practice in the church. Therefore Reformed Christians practice covenant baptism because we are commanded to do so in both the Old and New Covenant Scriptures. We believe that the Bible alone is the Spirit inspired, infallible, Word of God written. God’s Word alone is the source of our faith. Comparing our ideas with God’s clear revelation in the Bible is the only way to safety and certainty."

Reformation Irony

I couldn't help but notice the irony after I ordered both of these items from Amazon.com:

A commentary on Galatians by Catholic scholar Frank Matera from the Sacra Pagina series.

The 2003 movie "Luther" starring Joseph Fiennes.

Scottish Churches House

Scottish Churches House is an ecumenical conference centre on the Cathedral square in Dunblane, Scotland. They have a programme called "Grasping Nettles" and on the 1st of April (next week), I'll speaking there with Helen Bond (Edinburgh University) on "The Bible – literal truth or metaphor?" It kicks off at 5.30 p.m. and if you're in that part of Scotland then feel free to come along and hear two scholars talk and exchange views over the nature and form of the Gospels.

Karl Barth on the "Faithfulness of Christ"

For the Barthophiles out there:

"The fact that I live in the faith of the Son of God, in my faith in him, has its basis in the fact that He Himself, the Son of God, first believed for me ... the great work of faith has already been done by the One whom I follow in my faith, even before I believe, even if I no longer believe, in such a way that He is always, as Heb 12:2 puts it, the originator and completer of our faith ... His faith is the victory which has overcome the world"

CD II/2, 559.

The Skunk Doth Speakth

I have done my best to try to demonstrate that there are aspects of the "New Perspective of Paul" that those of the Reformed faith can appropriate without losing their way. I've also been critical of the New Perspective (if you don't believe me then ask Tom Wright or Jimmy Dunn who see me as a sympathetic critic). But I've recently learnt that much of this conversation is immensely futile.

Scott Clark has a blog entry on Can Reformed Theology and the NPP Be Synthesized? which links to Guy Waters' review of Dan Kirk's new book Unlocking Romans. I chimed in the comments to the effect that: "There are different ways of appropriating the NPP. The most promising is to recognize the horizontal aspects of justification which NPP interpreters have pointed out (though without reducing justification to a social epiphenomena as some NPP proponents can do). It is this aspect that has been neglected in post-Reformation dogmatics since Paul is just as much concerned with 'Who are the people of God?' as he is with 'What must I do to be saved?'. Whether ya like it or not, this is one aspect that we can learn from the NPP. I would add that Sanders’ participationist eschatology is far more likely to be the centre of Paul’s thought than the imputed righteousness of the active obedience of Jesus Christ in order to fulfil the covenant of works!" I thought that, that was a fairly straight foward comment stated in a cordial and generous way.

There was a response from the Rev. Gary Johnson (co-editor with Guy Waters of By Faith Alone: Answering the challenges to the Doctrine of Justification) which labels me, and this is classic, as a "sneaky, low-down skunk who embraced the NPP ... while stilling claiming to be Reformed". How does one respond to that?

I have genuinely tried to have a serious and gracious conversation with certain folks in the conservative Reformed wing about Pauline theology, but I am now led to believe that this is an exercise in futility. I trust, then, that my interaction in a forthcoming book by IVP with a bonafide Reformed scholar in Michael Horton will show how to have a fruitful and cordial discussion on these issues. I doubt whether I'll be able to convince Mike Horton (and vice-versa), but hopefully we can present a model of civilized and Christian conversation within the Reformed tradition to which we both belong.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and the Definition of the Gospel

In many discussions of the “Gospel” when reference is made to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 the actual context is nearly overlooked and often ignored. This ignorance is most evident in that the text quoted is usually cut off at verse 4:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . .

Given the context and point of the chapter, it seems to me that this is a significant error since it is in these latter verses 5-8 that Paul speaks of the resurrection appearances:

. . . and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 

Here then Paul is not attempting to define the Gospel in all its complexity, but to assert the reality of the resurrection. His brief summary statement of the Gospel’s content (vv. 3-4) is in service to his primary argument. To claim that this passage is Paul’s “statement” of the Gospel’s full content is inappropriate at best. 

Book Notice: Craig Koester - The Word of Life

Craig Koester
The Word of Life: A Theology of John's Gospel
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
Available at Amazon.com

There are a number of good introductons to the Gospel of John (e.g. W. Carter, J. Ashton, R.E. Brown, R. Kysar, G. Burge), but my favourite for the moment is Craig Koester's new book The Word of Life. The TOC is viewable here. My favourite part is the final section on "Jesus as the Way in a Pluralistic World":

"The Fourth Gospel presents a particular message with a universal scope. At the beginning of our study we noted that the evangelist wrote in a world of varied religious traditions. The people depicted in this Gospel have different ideas about God, and their viewpoints conflict. John is no stranger to interreligious controversy. In this context, he seeks to show that God is known in a definitive way through what God has done in Jesus. John can speak to the pluralistic world in which his readers live because he has something particular to offer. To make the message less particular would mean making the love of God less radical, since the evangelist understands that divine love is definitively conveyed through the crucified and risen Messiah. At the same time, John understands that God's love is given in this particular way for the sake of the world (3:16). This means that the Gospel writer cannot say, 'Jesus is the way for me but not for you.' To say that would be to say that 'the love of God is for me but not for you,' or that 'Jesus went the way of the cross and resurrection for me but not for you.' The Jesus of John's Gospel sends his followers into the world. There they meet human beigns who, like themselves, have no innnate ability to generate relationship with God. What the followers of Jesus bring is what they themselves have received: the message of the cruciform love of God that calls any and all to faith and life. This is the purpose for which John's Gospel was written (20:31)." (page 214).

If I were teaching a course of the Gospel of John, I would probably set my materials as:

1. Introduction: Craig Koester, The Word of Life (though Burge and Kysar are quite tempting).

2. Commentary: Andreas Köstenberger, John BECNT series (but with D.A. Carson, Leon Morris, C.K. Barrett, Craig Keener on a reading list).

3. Other: The Gospel of John on DVD which I ordinarily watch over 13 weeks with my NT 102 students and it is most beneficial.

4. Further recommended reading would have to based around M. Hengel, R. Brown, R. Bauckham, and D. Moody Smith and their assorted works.

D.A. Carson on the Biblical Gospel

There is a PDF on-line written by D.A. Carson on the Biblical Gospel. It is a good read and includes this quote:

Thus the gospel is integrally tied to the Bible’s story-line. Indeed, it is incomprehensible without understanding that story-line. God is the sovereign, transcendent and personal God who has made the universe, including us, his image-bearers. Our misery lies in our rebellion, our alienation from God, which, despite his forbearance, attracts his implacable wrath. But God, precisely because love is of the very essence of his character, takes the initiative and prepared for the coming of his own Son by raising up a people who, by covenantal stipulations, temple worship, systems of sacrifice and of priesthood, by kings and by prophets, are taught something of what God is planning and what he expects. In the fullness of time his Son comes and takes on human nature. He comes not, in the first instance, to judge but to save: he dies the death of his people, rises from the grave and, in returning to his heavenly Father, bequeaths the Holy Spirit as the down payment and guarantee of the ultimate gift he has secured for them—an eternity of bliss in the presence of God himself, in a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. The only alternative is to be shut out from the presence of this God forever, in the torments of hell.6 What men and women must do, before it is too late, is repent and trust Christ; the alternative is to disobey the gospel (Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17).

HT: Justin Taylor

Michael Bird - Wrestler

As many of you know, I have red hair, my mother is Welsh, and I'm fairly atheltic (my preference is for kickboxing or tennis, but wrestling can be fun too). Watch and enjoy this match for a youth club in Wales:

An Evening Reflecting on Markus Barth

I've said before, that one my favourite NT Theologians is Markus Barth. This evening I've been sipping a nice cab sav and reading about good old MB (brilliant initials you have to agree). Markus Barth (b. October 6, 1915 – d. July 1, 1994) studied Protestant theology in Bern, Basel, Berlin, and Edinburgh. From 1940 to 1953 he was pastor in Bubendorf near Basel. In 1947 he received a doctorate in New Testament from the University of Göttingen. Between 1953 and 1972 he held professorships in New Testament at theological schools in Dubuque (Iowa), Chicago, and Pittsburgh. From 1973 to 1985 he was professor of New Testament in Basel. I'm amazed of how much stuff that has gained currency in NT studies was prefigured by Markus Barth. For example:

Resurrection and Justification: Acquittal by Resurrection (with Verne H. Fletcher; New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1964). I thought my own ruminations on this subject were unprecedented, original, and masterful - until I read MB on the subject and learned that he'd said the same thing 35 years before me.

Faithfulness of Jesus Christ: "The Faith of the Messiah," Heythrop Journal 10 (1969): 363-70. MB long ago recognized that God's faithfulness is revealed in the faithfulness of the Messiah.

The New Perspective: “Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968): 241-67. Forget Stendahl and Sanders, the New Perspective on Paul was really launched by the Barthians.

The 1995 issue of Horizons in Biblical Theology is dedicated to Markus Barth and includes several articles interacting with his work and, importantly, inlcudes a reflective piece by Donald E. Gowan, "In Memory of Markus Barth: A Personal Note". Several quotes from Gowan stand out:

"One of the advantages of having Markus Barth as one's model teacher is that his style was so unique that it was impossible to imitate him, as other students have tried to imitate the styles of their favourite teachers. One had to develop one's own style, with the aim of making a similar impression on one's students: namely the impression made by Markus' committment to Scripture as the Word of God, his dedication to thoroughness, and his obvious joy in discovering new things in Scripture. I sometimes tell my classes how he answered a student's question at Dubuque as to why he did not open his classes with prayer: He said he made no sharp distinction between his exegetical work and his prayer life".

"The quiet, gentle man was also in truth a daunting person, for he expected us to work."

"At the Divinity School [i.e. Chicago], he represented a challenge to the old, Chicago liberalism for which that school was famous The Divinity School News reported on a congenial, but vigorous discussion between Barth and Bernard Loomer, an advocate of process theology ... the significance of Markus' appointment to the Divinity School was emphasized by one student's blunt question: 'Why did the school appointment Dr. Markus Barth to this faculty?'"

"During my first year there, the Biblical Colloquium involved graduate students and Bible faculty in a year-long study of Romans, and the exchanges between Barth and Robert Grant, who represented significantly different approaches to interpretation, offered young scholars a great learning experience. The open forums at his home that year were no less stimulating; we worked our way through Bultmann's New Testament Theology during those evenings."

Another article by Charles Dickinson, "Markus Barth and Biblical Theology: A Personal Re-View" is no less entertaining than Gowan's article.

"After breaking a lance with the Bultmannians [Kasemann's review of Barth's doctoral dissertation Der Augenzeuge was savage]; serving a pastorate in Bubendorf, Switzerland; and publishing a tome on baptism, Markus was called to teach New Testament at Dubuque, Iowa; at the University of Chicago; at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; and finally to succeed Oscar Cullmann in his beloved home town of Base, Switzerland. It was in Chicago in 1962/63 that something of a theological parousia occurred in my own life, when not only did Markus Barth - primarily through his weekly theological evenings 'at home' - become my own mentor, advisor, and 'spiritual father,' but Karl Barth himself came to the University of Chicago in 1962 to deliver the lectures which became the beginning of Evangelical Theology: An Introduction and to speak with us students at Markus' 'at-home' that week".

I also found it interesting to learn that Markus Barth's first publication was: "Die Gestapo gegen die Bekenntniskirche," BN June 19-20 (1937). Heck of a topic to start your publishing career on!!! I honestly wish I'd met the guy, oh well, I'll compensate for that by reading his many works, esp. on baptism and eurcharist.

If anyone can get me a copy of Markus Barth's audio lectures on Galatians (do I have any friends in Princeton who have access to them?), I would dearly love to listen to them!

Mark Dever Responds to Critics

Over at the 9Marks blog, Mark Dever responds to his critics "The Sin of Infant Baptism", written by a sinning Baptist.

Dever writes with genuine humility and honest charity (esp. in his quote from J.L. Reynolds). It is a good response to his critics. As I said, I have no beef with Baptists being Baptist and holding to their own way (as Dever passionately does). Yet, I still think the term "sinful" is not a useful description for those brothers and sisters whose theology deviates from yours, mine or anyone elses on non-essential areas. I might be convinced that continuationism is correct, but I wouldn't call cessationists "sinful". I might find historical pre-millennialism more persuasive, but I wouldn't say postmillennialism is "sinful". I think open communion is more biblical, but I wouldn't say that those who practice closed communion are sinful. I say that because there are degrees of theological certainty. On subjects that call for theological construction we need to have a hermeneutic of humility in areas that are contestable because we do not have a God's eye-view of things. I think Dever would agree with that in principle, but his language could be construed to suggest otherwise. Dever says: "It is simply that on this point they've got it wrong, and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism), and the consequence of a denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) is sinful (though unintentionally so)." Dever admits that he is theologically fallible, but that concession needs to be integrated more fully into his quote above and this, I think, would lead to a different articulation of how to handle theological differences even if you're convinced that you're right!

Ephesians 4.4-5 says: "There is one body and one Spirit- just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call- one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (ESV). In his Ephesians commentary, F.F. Bruce asks what baptism is referred to here, is it believers baptism or infant baptism? He answers: "It is Christian baptism", i.e. any baptism performed in the name of Jesus Christ. No doubt that will be a bit vacuous for some, but he had a point (and he was a good old Brethren boy!).

I should also mention that IVP has a book on Three Views of Baptism coming out featuring Sinclair Ferguson, Bruce Ware, and Tony Lane. I understand Tony Lane is arguing for some kind of both/and view rather like the Evangelical Free Church. That will be a good volume to read no doubt!

Update

Rick Phillips of Reformation21 provides a further paedo-baptist response to Mark Dever which raises similar concerns to the ones that I have.

Latest European Journal of Theology

The latest issue of EJT 17.2 (2008) is out and includes:

Myriam Klinker-De Clerck
The Pastoral Epistles: authentic Pauline writings

Klaus Wetzel
Die Missionsgeschichte Deutschlands im Kontext der europaeschen Missionsgeschichte

Leonardo De Chirico
Ethics and the Internet, Starting from Theology

Nazaareno Ulfo
The Challenge of Cyberculture

Thomas Gerold
Liebende Selfsthingabe als anfanghafter Glaube? Eine Antwort an Lydia Jaeger

Soggy Fish Award - Mark Dever

It's been a while since I've handed out a soggy fish award (i.e. an award reserved for people who should be slapped in the face with a very soggy fish until they come to their senses), but I'm gonna hand one out to (I cannot believe I'm saying this) Mark Dever for a statement he made in recent article in the 9marks eJournal about things he can or cannot live with as a pastor.

I cannot live with infant baptism. Having said that, if I were the pastor of the only church allowed in Mecca, maybe… But even then, I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized. It is, as one said not too long ago, “above my pay-grade.” I have many dear paedo-baptists friends from whom I have learned much. Yet I see their practice as a sinful (though sincere) error from which God protects them by allowing for inconsistency in their doctrinal system, just as he graciously protects me from consistency with my own errors.

Now I know people who are Baptists with a big "B" and find being a Baptist to be really, really exciting, they love Baptist history, they stand by the Baptist way of doing church, they love etymological studies of the word Baptizo and so forth. I've spent the majority of my Christian life in Baptist churches too, so I respect that, but truth be told, I find the gospel more exciting than Baptist distinctives. Consequently, I have to say that to call paedobaptists sinful is outta line. It doesn't bother me that he thinks paedobaptism is wrong and he'd never permit within his own congregation, but "sinful"! That sort of language belongs elsewhere. If we should not have fellowship with sinful people (heaps of Scripture on that one, e.g. Psalm 1), then what the heck is Mark Dever doing with the sinful paedobaptists of Together for the Gospel? Personally, I think the fact that he wouldn't share communion with Ligon Duncan or R.C. Sproul is proof that they are not really together in the senses that matter. I mean if you won't break bread and share wine in Jesus' name with someone and if you insist on calling them sinful, exactly what kind of togetherness are you celebrating? What is more, to label a divergent theological view which is a non-essential to the faith "sinful" is theologically irresponsible, pastorally insensitive, and ecclesially arrogant. I benefitted immensely from Mark Dever's book 9 Marks of a Healthy Church (a good alternative to much Church Growth junk), but this attitude is not healthy for a kingdom perspective on baptism. So Pastor Mark, God-bless your Baptist socks, but this fish is for you!

HT: Art.

Dan Reid on the Pauline Strip

Dan Reid and I are both memorising Colossians (mind you I'm only memorising 1.15-20). In the course of the way, Dan posts on Col. 2.15 in talking about the Pauline strip. It comes down to whether you take the participle apekdusamenos as middle 'Christ stripped himself' or as deponent 'Christ stripped the powers'. Dan takes the former (as per most patristic authors) and I take the latter (with most modern commentators). Or we could put it this way with by noting J.B. Lightfoot: 'The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about his humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In his cross we too are divested of the poisonous and clinging garments of temptation and sin and death' (Colossians, 190). Or go with Stanley E. Porter: ‘Jesus Christ’s beneficial or participatory stripping of the defeated demonic enemies of their power makes better sense of the imagery’ (Stan Porter, Idioms, 69).

Note also how the Gospel of Truth echoes Col. 2.15 in this regard: ‘Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability ... he passed through those who were stripped naked by oblivion’ A gnostic appropriation is of course no argument against the middle force of the participle. But I tend to think that the link of 2.15 with 1.12-14 and the military imagery of defeated hostile forces makes disarming or stripping the powers the most likely image to readers.