Third Quest out of steam?

Scot McKnight, in an ETS address last November, and Markus Bockmuehl, in his recent Seeing the Word (c. p44), have both intimated that the ‘Third Quest’ for the historical Jesus is running out of steam (though cf. Bockmuehl’s brilliant work for qualifications).

While I am not half the NT man these guys are, I am not so sure I agree. When I think of the contributions of, for example, Michael Bird or Brant Pitre, and works in progress, such as Michael Barber’s, I believe that restoration eschatology has an awful lot to lend to the discussion. I tend to think it is a lively and open discussion, with many possibilities for significant breakthroughs.

Hobbins on inerrancy

John Hobbins has written a terrific response to my post on 'Fundamentalism, inerrancy and Jim West' here. It appears that he wants to affirm inerrancy because of its rich tradition in church tradition, because superlative descriptions of scripture should not be hindered by certain ‘imperfections’ in the text.

Just a few points before it gets too late here in England. First, let us not forget what Goldingay has called ‘the nineteenth-century elaboration’ of inerrancy. Today’s versions are equivalent, but not the same. I would add, in the same breath, that these modern varieties certainly are a matter of deductive logic (cf. Warfield, Geisler, Grudem etc.).

In an interesting section Hobbins writes:

“There is nothing innovative at all about speaking of scripture in language that overlooks its imperfections (‘let it pass,’ says Luther, rightly) and concentrates, in superlative terms, on its perfections. Those who wish to praise Scripture with triter language – (moderately) useful; (all other things being equal) profitable; teachable (so long as it is transposed into the categories of later tradition or the latest ideology) – have nothing in common with Gregory of Nyssa or Martin Luther”

A terrific point, and one those of us who critique inerrancy would do well to remember. I hope I take it to heart. But six responses: 1) Today, should we be happy with these ‘superlative’ inerrancy terms when they are laden with deductively prescribed and exact statements, as in the Chicago Statement – something that was not clearly on the horizon of Gregory of Nyssa, Luther etc.? 2) The ‘triter language’, as he puts it, would certainly have plenty in common with one of the most famous biblical witnesses to the nature of scripture’s inspiration, namely that in 2 Tim 3:16 (‘All scripture is inspired by God and is useful ...’). 3) My own language concerning scripture in the so-called ‘Tilling Statement’, I suggest, is appropriately and deeply superlative, yet is not formulated in such a way that contradicts bare fact. 4) In light of modern formulations, such as the Chicago Statement that further define what one must consider historical (e.g. the flood), this tradition needs reformation (semper reformandum), and for the sake of the churches witness, the nature of truth in relation to scripture needs to be re-formulated. At least, I would argue so! Love always rejoices in the truth, after all. 5) The Chicago Statement, for example, has little to do with doxology, and more to do with precise definitions. I hope that my own statement, proffered on my blog a while ago, recaptures the superlative aspect Hobbins so rightly draws attention to, while avoiding the promotion of belief in a, for want of a more pertinent word, lie. My own understanding of scripture, which rejects inerrancy, does so precisely to provoke doxology (it was penned for confession by the gathered church, in worship), and not to succumb to the restraints of logical propositions. It is the modern formulation of inerrancy that is weighed down by a deductively logical weariness, not the freedom that only comes via truth. 6) Hobbins mentions ‘imperfections’. But let us be honest what they are, though. Errors. Thanks, Lord, for an inerrant text, despite these errors? Unless we today reframe these ‘truth’ matters, as I have suggested elsewhere, we will get some rather bewildered ‘Amens’!

A little later he adds:

‘“Scripture is without error in all that it affirms” (Lausanne Covenant), well, you don’t say? I can’t find “God in three persons, blessed Trinity” in the Bible either’

As noted in the comments by Drew, a fundamental difference between the Lausanne Covenant claim and the ‘God in three persons’ claim, is that the Lausanne statement is factually false. ‘Blessed Trinity’ is to be gladly worshipped as Truth.

He writes:

“Should someone object that the verses cited do not in the first instance refer to the inscripturated word of God, but to some unknown subset thereof, or to an ephemeral word of which we now have nothing: know this: you have the entire interpretive tradition of synagogue and church against you. The great tradition applied these verses to the entire sweep of scripture”

This is precisely what I have attempted to do in my own formulation (which I now consider best to concern the trustworthiness of scripture), but certainly not in the service of modern formulations of inerrancy. I think I'll re-post my now re-worked formulation here when I return to Germany.

Finally, he writes: “It’s time to engage in multi-tiered thinking, like this: the Bible affirms that God leads into error (1 Kings 22; Isa 6 [and NT actualizations thereof]; 63:17), and at the same time, that God did not err in so doing”. I applaud John’s spirit here. However, I don’t think he goes far enough. This faint strand is not enough on which to hang the nature of scripture in relation to truth. Rather than let such inerrancy concerns win such a small square of theological rational, why not recover all the masses of scriptures gathered in my own formulation, and reframe them in light of a more biblical understanding of truth?

Do give Hobbins' articulate and helpful response a read.

Quote for the day: Perriman

Happy Christmas to all of you!

Over my Christmas break I took the time read Andrew Perriman’s breathtaking Re:Mission. Biblical Mission for a post-biblical church which I shall review when I return to Germany. It either will be or already is available from Paternoster, in the ‘Faith in an Emerging Culture’ series.

Perriman is certainly one of my favourite authors. His thought is rich, eloquent, provocative, committed to scripture, and very often, and I mean this quite honestly, has the mark of genius. He is, at least for me, a reformer of the evangelical gospel. Perhaps it is for that reason that I feel he hangs too loosely to the canon-forming, interpretive and exegetical streams of church tradition - traditions, I dare to hope, which have been guided, albeit more or less, by the Holy Spirit.

Let me put it like this (without wanting to give the impression I am a closet Catholic!). It is church tradition (A) that has shaped the ‘canon’ of scripture (B), and this ‘canon’ is itself the backbone of our understandings of the scriptural narrative (C). Yet it is this narrative (C) that Perriman employs with such devastating and illuminating effect to (overly?) boldly critique … church traditions (A). This process (A-B-C-[critiques]->A) needs to be handled carefully, and I’m not sure Perriman is at his most nuanced at this point. I thus find myself backing away from some of Perriman’s conclusions, even though I find his method and results so exciting.

Am I just being a boring old stuffy traditionalist conservative, paying lip service to critical scholarship while ‘running to the hills’ when it starts to hurt? I’m not sure I can answer that yet. I admit that there is some he writes that I find myself disagreeing with, and I regularly find him unsettling. But it is precisely for this reason that I so enjoy reading his works!

So here is my quote of the day. I read the text below and had one of those ‘ah ha!’ moments. For a moment, I stopped feeling guilty for making the text of scripture appear so alien and distant in discussions with some friends.

“I would question the assumption that Scripture ought to be immediately accessible, easily intelligible, to the modern reader. The problem is that the Bible is not a modern text: it is an ancient text, written to address ancient circumstances, constructed out of the peculiar thought-forms of an ancient worldview, and it should seem strange and irrelevant to us” (Perriman, Otherways, p. 57)

An afterthought: If you are reading the bible with due consideration of its historical context, it should seem strange, and, in many ways, irrelevant. I hasten to add, it doesn’t work both ways. If the bible is strange and irrelevant to you, that is no proof that you are reading the bible with such due consideration!

Home to Old Blighty

We arrived safely in England last night - to the land that brought you the best sports, real humour, proper manners, personal hygiene, the stiff upper lip, unparalleled learning and literature, to the land that brought you tea (shut up, Indians), glorious food (shut up everyone else in the world), the Opium wars, Margaret Thatcher, and everything else worth anything at all. It’s nice to come home.

On the plane, we were stuck behind two libidonically energised young people who couldn’t stop talking. Loudly. And boy did they have opinions … on everything. Being unfortunately forced to listen to their non-stop opinionating, I couldn’t help note the odd logical non sequiturs, use of the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, question begging, not to mention the use anecdotal evidence to prove a point etc.

Of course, my teeth were grinding like two bunnies in a sleeping bag, but there was more. One of them continued falling into numerous horrendous (circumstantial) Ad Hominem arguments, not to mention the old Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. If this was not enough, the person in question also saw fit to employ the erroneous rhetorically “misleading vividness”, guilt by association and hasty generalisation tactics.

By this point I was getting ready to use the edge of my Church of England prayer book as a lethal weapon, and forever finish their argumentation methods. I wanted, oh so wanted to see how far I could shove my travel ESV bible down their throats.

But I didn’t. I just sat there angrily wearing down the enamel of my teeth, totally under control.

Behold my Christmas spirit.

Christmas spirit

The Father Christmas Competition is open again. Log your results in the comments box.

Addendum: A special 2007 bonus point, suggested by Josh McManaway, is offered this year. Add one extra point (even if you get no visible reaction), if you say to the kids: ‘Santa isn’t real and if he were, he would hate you’. Two bonus points if you flash that one while their mum is standing next to you.

Addendum two: Take a hunk of chicken-on-the-bone with you, and if you convince any dew eyed kids that the half eaten carcass was a present wrapping elf called ‘Fluffy’, add two points (advice: show a picture of cute 'Fluffy' for maximum effect).

UPDATE: Thus far, Chris Tilling has accumulated 15 points. I luckily had a bus full of toddlers to work on today (sadly no tears, but plenty of wet-eyed nods of concession). Yea baby!

UPDATE II: Chris Tilling whips out the ‘Santa isn’t real and if he were, he would hate you’ line ten times while buying presents for his family, this afternoon. The eyecontact with one little girl lasted long enough for a little blubber time, doubling my score! Awesome! This brings me to my all time best of 50 points. *Shouts a Benny Hinn sized AMEN!*

UPDATE III: Nick (the incarnate evil) Norelli has been slaying and ninjaing his way to 75 points! Well done, Nick! Respect for the tears. They are rare, precious moments.

Christian Zionism and the narrative of exile, restoration and the Gentiles. Pt 2

My previous post summarised the sort of narrative one confronts in much prophetic literature. It was, of course, a crude over simplification and missed out much, such as the significance of the tribulation which I ought to have mentioned.

When I first encountered these prophetic traditions and the narrative contained therein, I was tempted to make aspects of Jesus and his ministry, death and resurrection, and claims in the letters, cohere with specific points within this narrative. However, things are not so simple. While Jesus' death, in some respects, reflects the tribulation, he also prophesied the coming 'Great Tribulation' which was to overtake Jerusalem within one generation (Cf. Wright, Pitre etc.). Paul, likewise, could speak in tribulation-related language of a coming catastrophe across the entire Mediterranean world (Perriman), yet the Gentile mission had already begun – based precisely upon the prophetic narrative outlined in the previous post on this series.

Instead of a direct equation between aspects of this narrative and moments in the 'Christ event', what we have is the eschatological inauguration of this prophetic narrative in the life death and resurrection of Jesus (and in the life and ministry of his Apostles), with some aspects of the narrative starting when others have not ended. This prophetic narrative was nevertheless inaugurated. It had begun, and the entire structure of NT theology presupposes this fact.

Let me press the point. Whenever we celebrate communion and the new covenant in Christ's blood, we are saying that this prophetic tradition begun in Christ. Whenever we read in the New Testament of the 'new creation in Christ', or the giving of the spirit, or of the 'new heart' or about Paul's Gentile mission, or Christ's preaching of the arrival of the kingdom of God, and his 'gathering' of the Twelve, or even when we simply read the New Testament, we do so because this prophetic narrative has been inaugurated.

All of this has clear implications in the Christian Zionism debate. At the beginning of this series I defined Christian Zionism along the following lines: that it is the belief that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy.

What I have argued is that these prophesies were inaugurated not in 1948, but in the Christ-event. The crucial time for biblical prophecy is not 1948, but the first century. It is entirely irresponsible to ransack Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah or whoever, with the understanding that verses harvested from the chapters of these prophetic writings somehow confirm modern political events in a direct sense. To make such claims is to short circuit one of the fundamental narratives within Scripture and the justification for the very existence of the New Testament.

I don't think the above reasoning entirely excludes the notion that 1948 may in some sense be a faint reflection of the eschatological promises already inaugurated in Christ (but see below). Nor does it exclude the notion that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was an act of God's grace. What is excluded is the Christian use of these OT prophetic writings as proof for these events as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy.

Especially when this 'return' led to the persecution of Christians, i.e. those who claim to be the result of the real messianic inauguration of these prophesies. Especially when the return was no return in a literal biblical sense, either (the twelve tribes - including the lost ten northern tribes, to their alotted land), which they claim it is (but cf. Jesus and the Twelve disciples). I.e. the Christian Zionist reading is not a literal reading over and against the 'christological' one. And one also wonders whether the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 itself really coheres with the prophetic narrative, such as the ingathering of the Gentiles, the pouring out of the Spirit etc. Does the narrative trajectory understanding, of at least the Apostle Paul, support the CZ case at all? In light of Romans 4:13 ('For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith') one would be hard pressed to add the CZ addendum here without writing a most unusual closing chapter to the narrative as it has developed through Christ.

One of the realisations I have come to is that the NT hermeneutic is variegated. Many are as christological as I maintained in the previous posts in this series. To that one must now add the scope and significance of the prophetic narratives for the structure and direction of NT theology. My argument leads me to no other conclusion other than that the straightforward CZ case must be rejected.

I may write one more post in this series reflecting upon Romans 9-11.

Fundamentalism, inerrancy and Jim West

Once again the subject of inerrancy is causing lively debate in biblioblogdom. This time, troublemaker Jim West throws down the gauntlet with a post attempting to define Fundamentalism simply as 'a person who believes that the Bible is inerrant or infallible'.

The gauntlet has been picked up by John Hobbins, who writes: 'He [Jim] also contends that none of the Reformers were fundamentalists according to his definition, because "NONE of the Reformers would attribute to a book what can only be attributed to God". There is only one problem with Jim's assertion. It's not true'.

1. I must admit that while I don't think Jim's definition of Fundamentalism is sufficient, his critique of inerrancy as a non scriptural doctrine is essentially spot-on. It is only by applying a deductively logical wringer to scriptural statements (i.e. by jamming texts that state inspiration or the truth of God's word together with the theological propositions that 'God cannot lie') that the potent 'inerrancy' cocktail is made – which is then poured quickly over the whole Christian canon. However, scripture itself demands that a more inductive approach be adopted. By only using scripture, and nothing else, it can be demonstrated that the bible contains errors of many kinds. This is a simply fact of our scriptures, and must be acknowledged in the process of developing a specifically scriptural understanding of scripture. It necessarily short fuses the 'inerrancy' deductive logic.
   
2. Some will respond, as does the Chicago Statement, Article XIV, that unexplained alleged errors do not violate the doctrine of inerrancy. However, the doctrine of inerrancy is making a claim that the investigation of smaller details can either falsify or verify. Scripture itself thoroughly falsifies it.
   
3. This doesn't mean that we, who call ourselves evangelicals, should throw our hands up in despair and all become liberals! God forbid! I affirm a very high view of scripture, indeed one that can be understood as higher than 'inerrancy' – one that focuses on our practices and posture to scriptures.
   
4. Church tradition is, I believe, more ambiguous that West implies in terms of inerrancy. Yes the Reformers, or anyone else before, didn't operate under the same kind of assumptions which were to later influence modern formulations of inerrancy (namely the Scottish philosophy of 'common sense'). But it must be admitted that many of them could speak in extremely exalted language about the Bible. Luther, for example, could describe scripture as 'God incarnate'! Nevertheless, and here is why West's point can be essentially affirmed, Luther was also untroubled by historical discrepancies in scripture: 'Let it pass, it does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith' (cf. Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 262-63)
   
5. While 'fun' certainly is included in 'Fundamentalism', so is 'mental'.
   
6. Let's speak positively of the trustworthiness of scripture, not negatively of inerrancy. After all, the author 2 Timothy didn't write: 'no scripture is rather lamely uninspired', nor did the author of Hebrews write: 'the word of God is not dead and not passive, not as blunt as any two-edged blunt sword', and the Psalmist didn't confess: 'the words of the LORD are not flawed'!
   
7. As academics, we also need to exercise grace with those who have been raised to affirm inerrancy, and whose theological world falls from beneath them if it is put into question.
   
8. Furthermore, and this is something those of us who think of ourselves as academics would do well to remember, many who would affirm inerrancy are far more open, humble and loving people than many of us will ever be.
   
9. I tend to think of Fundamentalism as more of a character trait, a strong disposition toward arrogance, an inability to dialogue, the need to pigeonhole people as 'opponents', a self assured position that cannot be challenged by these 'opponents', a set of 'undisputable' yet dubious expectations about scripture, and an inability to see greys instead of only black and white. Couple this with inerrancy, or anything else (e.g. atheism, theological liberalism), and you have a total bastard on the loose.

The Emergent Conversation ...

... is not merely about a misunderstood application of 'becoming all things to all men', as if it were just a matter of accommodation to present cultural trends (though all accommodate to one or another). It is, in its best moments, about the urgently necessary and continued reformation of the church in its ministry, method and message.

My previous ‘erection post’

While on the subject of posts and erection, I would like to apologise for my last erected post. I was most immature to keep on about an erection, especially in a post – for the last thing needed in biblioblogdom is anything about erectile posts. I will try to keep my post erection free from now on ...

Quote of the day: First century sleaze

"Now the most excellent five were of this character, they related to the monarchial principle on which the world is governed; to images and statues, and in short to all erections of any kind made by hand"

(Philo, Decalogue 51 - transl. de Yonge, C., The works of Philo : Complete and unabridged Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995, p. 522)

Too much information, Philo. Too much information.

A Tilling Wildlife Documentary on “The West”

During our stay in San Diego for the SBL congress, I shared a room with one of nature's rarest and most undomesticated creatures, The West. Of course, this was a chance to learn something about this most elusive, territorial and mindlessly aggressive of animals. It was still a pity things got so ugly at the end.

Two great online videos

The first is a debate called "Eine Frage des Glaubens: Das neue Interesse am Atheismus". Richard Dawkins is joined by a number of folk, including the articulate Bishop Wolfgang Huber. To be honest, I don't know why this Dawkins chap is getting so much airtime – it is certainly not for the quality of his argumentation which is uninformed fundie tripe – but the discussion is stimulating, none the less.

The second is really terrific (thanks Susi!). The discussion theme of 'Menschen bei Maischberger' was 'Angriff der Gottlosen: Vergiftet Religion die Welt?'. It includes a really superb interview with Hans Küng who speaks very honestly about all manner of subjects. A truly revealing and inspiring video to watch (Küng appears about 2/3 of the way through)

Christology and Science

Over the weekend I spent quite a few hours with theologian, LeRon Shults, for his Tübingen lectures on his forthcoming book, Christology and Science. Not only is LeRon a real nice chap (and a blogger!), his work has deeply impressed me for quite a while now. I feel that my work, and what I am attempting at an exegetical level in terms of Paul, in a small way mirrors his massive project in the world of systematic theology. His forthcoming is, as far as I am concerned, his most interesting to date. Not only is his breadth of vision remarkable, but his solutions are deeply spiritual, faithful to historic Christian faith, dynamically contemporary and intellectually satisfying – not to say excitingly stimulating and encouraging! If you have not read anything by LeRon Shults yet, do yourself a favour and grab one of his works:

1. Christology and Science. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Series in Religion and Science, and Eerdmans Pub. Co, in press.
   
2. The Holy Spirit (with Andrea Hollingsworth). Eerdmans "Guides to Theology" series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, in press.
   
3. Transforming Spirituality: Integrating Theology and Psychology (with Steve Sandage). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
   
4. The Evolution of Rationality: Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen (editor). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.
   
5. Reforming the Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
   
6. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. (This was my stimulating introduction to his work)
   
7. The Faces of Forgiveness: Searching for Wholeness and Salvation (with Steve Sandage). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
   
8. The Postfoundationalist Task of Theology: Wolfhart Pannenberg and the New Theological Rationality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

See here for a complete list of his publications.

Christian Zionism and the narrative of exile, restoration and the Gentiles. Pt 1

Time to complete my Christian Zionism series!

This will come in (at least) two parts. In this one I examine the prophetic narrative of exile, restoration, the salvation of the Gentiles, plus certain associated themes that the NT picks up, and I look at how this narrative is retold in and informs NT texts.

One of the most exciting elements of the prophetic writings is the theme of the restoration of the tribes of Israel followed by salvation coming to the Gentiles (please, please read Brant Pitre's Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile, if you haven't yet – and Bird's Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission). You will find this narrative all over the place, not least in Second Isaiah (chapters 40-55). For example, Zechariah 8:13: 'Just as you have been a cursing among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so I will save you and you shall be a blessing'.

After the two major exiles, the ten northern tribes of Israel had been lost. Though some remained in the land, most of the tribes, at the time of Jesus and his Apostles, were scattered throughout the nations. In exile, the Israelite world of Jesus holds its breath for redemption...

Here are some NT snapshots with this crucial narrative in mind:

Acts 15:14-18 runs as follows:

'14 Simeon has related how God first looked favourably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written, 16 "After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, 17 so that all other peoples may seek the Lord-- even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called."'

Because the dwelling of David is rebuilt, because Israel is restored, there is hope at last for the Gentiles (v. 14, 17).

In 2 Corinthians 6:1-2 Paul writes:

'As we work together with him, we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, "At an acceptable time I have listened to you, and on a day of salvation I have helped you". See, now is the acceptable time; see, now is the day of salvation!'

Here Paul cites the text of Isaiah 49:8, almost exactly the same as that found in Rahlf's LXX. I submit that this is a classic case of what Hays calls metalepsis. The surrounding verses in Isaiah 49 inform our understanding of Paul's text. Within Isaiah 49 is the above narrative: Israel restored and regathered, Israel then given 'as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth' (cf. vv 5 and 6). The confidence of Paul as missionary to the Gentiles is because now is the time of salvation (also for the Gentiles). As Paul puts it at the start of 2 Corinthians: ' For in [Christ] every one of God's promises is a "Yes"' (1:20). Paul and his team become the righteousness of God (5:21) in the sense that God's saving righteousness is now available to the whole world (5:19), embodied in their ministry of reconciliation (5:18). Now there is 'new creation' in Christ (5:17).

The last paragraph shows that various other prophetic themes are associated with the restoration of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles. Here we see the matter of new creation noted, something associated with the above narrative in Isaiah (cf. 66:18-22 – though read the whole 66^th chapter). Connected with this narrative are such matters as the New Covenant (Isaiah 61:4-8; Jer 31), the pouring out of the Spirit (e.g. Ezekiel 39:29), and the new heart (e.g. Ezekiel 36:24-26) that find regular expression in the NT. The Lord's Supper tradition in Luke tells of Jesus speaking of the New Covenant in his blood, a matter picked up in Paul (1 Cor 11:25). The 'new heart' theme may well lie behind the Sermon on the Mount material, as Wright argues, and is explicitly adopted in Paul's argumentation in 2 Corinthians 3 (which also involves mention of the new covenant, mission to the Gentiles, and the ministry of the Spirit). The gift of the Spirit is related all over the place, for example in John (20:22), Luke-Acts (primarily Pentecost, of course!), Paul (e.g. Gal 3 – where it is appropriately linked to the blessing of Abraham).

In the next post in this series, I look at why all of this is important to the Christian Zionism debate.

Anna of the scattered tribe, Asher

"36 There was also a prophet, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day. 38 At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem" (Luke 2:36-38 )

This theme of the redemption of Israel is naturally related to Simeon's desire expressed a few verses earlier, for the 'consolation of Israel' (2:25). The word used here is the same as that in the Septuagint for 'Comfort, comfort my people' starting Second Isaiah. Of course, Second Isaiah goes on to expresses the prophetic hope for the restoration of the tribes of Israel, the gathering of those scattered among the nations.

The point of this post? The tribe of Asher was one of the 'lost' northern tribes. I wonder if there is any significance in Luke's narrative in the fact that it was Anna of the tribe of Asher who spoke 'about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem'?

Thoughts to ponder

From the brilliant Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, by Joel Green and Mark Baker

• 'The early tradition is evidently more interested in the affirmation that Jesus' death, far from taking God by surprise, was actually the means by which Jesus' mesiaship was most transparent, and is less concerned to tie down with precision how Jesus' death was effective in bringing about the salvation of the world' (17)
  
• 'Forgivingness and reconciliation are fundamentally social realities' (73)
  
• 'Paul S. Fiddes notes that Paul has a "penal view" of Christ's suffering and that he conceives of Christ as a substitute and representative of humankind, but he denies that these two concepts can be joined in Paul into a theory of "penal substitution", in which atonement is achieved via a transfer of penalty ... The phrase "penal substitution" is thus a mixing of Pauline metaphors' (95 n. 14)

Paul, ‘Apocalyptic’ and ‘Salvation-History’ approaches, and Barth

To oversimplify to the extreme: the modern apocalyptic approach to Paul, broadly speaking, denies a continuity between Paul's thought and the old creation and covenant. A salvation-history approach seeks to understand Paul's thinking as part of the trajectory, even if it is doing something new and radical, of the old covenant and creation. In the apocalyptic approach, God breaks into history independent of God's age-old promises tied to Israel's, and the world's, history – matters important to the salvation-history approach.

A few suggestions for your consideration:

These two approaches to Paul are, fundamentally, not about the nature of revelation such that one can be used to affirm a Barthian approach and the other not, but a largely exegetical judgment about the significance of the covenant as it relates to Paul's theology. The similarities between the 'apocalyptic' and Barth may well be superficial and less significant than at first appearance.

Why?

1. First, the hard distinction between 'apocalyptic' and 'salvation-history' approaches to Paul is often over pressed. Dunn once insightfully wrote that it was the "apocalyptic climax of the salvation-history which constituted the heart of his gospel". The two belong together for the apocalyptic reveals the ways in which God fulfils his covenant promises (Daniel). Were the new creation so utterly discontinuous, one would struggle to explain much of Paul's reasoning (famously in Rom 9-11, for example). And to state the obvious, Christ's significance was not written, by Paul, in binary code but in the language and milieu of Jewish Christianity as it sought to understand how Christ was the telos of the law. Yes Christ was new, surprising, discontinuous in so many ways with the old covenant, but Christ was not without context, not entirely 'out of the blue' and entirely impossible to understand as just 'out of the blue'. For an extended critique of dividing 'apocalyptic' from 'salvation-history', cf. Wright's Paul: Fresh Perspectives, chapter 3. What is more, criticisms of the salvation-history approach tend to unhelpful caricatures (cf. Doug Campbell in his otherwise excellent work, The Quest for Paul's Gospel, 37-38). Watson has a helpful section in Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith on the dialogue and conversation between Christ and scriptures in the understanding of the early church. Christ was not ever an entity separate from the scriptures given to the covenant people. It may be objected that some of these arguments caricature the 'apocalyptic' approach. But the point here is that 'apocalyptic' and 'salvation-history' approaches are a difference of emphasis, not kind – and were one to maintain the latter, one enters the land of the caricature I critiqued.
   
2. Barth, at the start of his 'Lehre von der Versöhnung' (CD IV), begins with 'The Covenant as the Presupposition (Voraussetzung) of Reconciliation' (IV §57.2). Wright, in his location of Paul's theology on the horizon of covenantal salvation history themes, continually speaks of 'rethought', 'reworked' and 'reimagined' in light of Christ. Both seek to locate Christ in a suitable context, yet re-read that context in the light of Christ.
   
3. Barth speaks of the history of Christ as the history of humanity. All is focused upon Christ and his story (hence Barth's revamp of traditional understandings of election). Wright maintains that Christ's life, death and resurrection expresses the history of Israel (election, exile and return) which itself was a retelling of Adam's, and the world's, story. See, for example, how Gregory MacDonald, in terms of the Apostle Paul, uses Wright's insights to argue that Christ's story is world history in a nutshell (The Evangelical Universalist)
   
4. It is the 'blessing of Abraham' (that sounds worryingly like salvation history!) that comes to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:14), and this because Christ became a 'curse' (covenantal Deuteronomic language) for us (3:13). In my view, Dunn's commentary on Galatians is the best Galatians commentary, and sheds more light on the text at such points than Louis Martyn's 'apocalyptically' slanted commentary.
   
5. I therefore suggest that Barthians would do well to avoid seeing a natural ally in the 'apocalyptic' approach to Paul. There may well be room for more fruitful dialogue with those in the salvation-history school – caricatures aside, given Barth's procedure in CD IV, the way in which everything is reimagined, rethought etc. in light of Christ, and the significance of the history of Christ in Wright's thought.

Proof-texting

A common insult hurled around by many Christians, especially those of the emergent variety, is that conservative evangelicals tend to 'proof-text' in their rhetoric. Mr Conservative beef-boy laces his argument with numerous references, and draws rather direct lines between his position and 2 Opinion X:X, and the tattooed emergent replies with the exclamation: 'You are just proof-texting!'. I'm sure many of us have seen something like this at some stage.

Not unsurprisingly, conservatives throw their arms up in frustration. 'What do you mean, "proof-texting"? We are simply showing our position is scriptural!'

To be honest, I sometimes suspect not just a few in the emergent community don't really know what they mean either with their accusation, and fall back on this nugget when scriptures seem to oppose their view or support their debate partner. Or am I being too cynical?

One blogger has defined proof texting as follows (do also have a look at his helpful statement of faith):

"By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances"

This is fair enough, but I want to suggest a definition that doesn't just emphasise the context of the text but also that of the reader. I propose that proof-texting is:

"the appropriation of scripture in the service of an argument that reads the text in terms of an inappropriate (even if scripturally laced) narrative or social discourse, in such a way that loses sight of this fact and thinks the scripture merely 'interprets itself'"

Of course, this implies that a text is thereby read in such a manner that loses sight also of its original context. But what makes proof-texting so difficult for many to see is that it is also about their assumed narrative or social discourse through which they read scripture. Many conservatives have a very scripturally sounding social discourse or narrative, with bible language abounding. So, when they read scripture, it is used to decorate this pre-given, this assumed narrative concerning the meaning of faith, Christ, and the church. This is done even though assumed their social discourse is profoundly unbiblical in its wider concerns and shape. The failure of much conservative evangelical rhetoric is not that they use scripture in their arguments, but that their assumed 'Christmas tree' upon which they often decoratively hang scripture, is in desperate need of reformation.

One conservative (whose sometimes ugly rhetoric is horribly and transparently guilty of proof-texting as I define it), frustrated by some emergent rhetoric, goes as far to claim that Jesus used the proof-texting method in his teaching! Of course, this misunderstands the point being made by intelligent emergent chaps, and the nature of Jesus handling of scripture.

This definition in mind, I would even claim that proof-texting is the most burdensome problem in conservative evangelical rhetoric.

Pictures

My camera is playing up and won't allow me to transfer the pictures I took onto my computer. Hopefully all problems will be solved tomorrow. So for those of you waiting for Jim West pictures, fear not.

Jim, I can still be bought off (paypal will do me fine). You recent empty rhetoric on your blog won't help your cause - I still have the Zwingli thong picture that caused me to puke.

Back!

Lordy, what a time. Right now I am jetlagged, exhausted, a bit ill, confused by the German keyboard ('y' is where 'z' is on English kezboard), surrounded by luggage, unsure where I will put my new books, but ... safely
home! And that despite the demonically inspired American road system in and around Washington DC which seemed to conspire to kill me at every opportunity. I had some 'choice words' to describe our journey from Durham, NC, when I finally pulled into the road of our friends and family in Arlington, believe me. The Pope wouldn't have been proud.

Which reminds me, one of the things we did in Durham, NC, was to meet the recently converted to Catholicism phenomenon known as Josh McManaway. There is a clever cookie. Of course, as you would expect, I couldn't resist using the word 'pope' as much as possible in our conversations, which I'm sure he appreciated. I think the Pope Tarts line was a little too blunt, however. But enough of this nonsense – it won't make me popeular with any of my Catholic friends, and typing that I'm going to pope over to the next paragraph isn't exactly funny.

And a special thanks to Jim West for the fun we had in sharing a room in San Diego. Thanks to all of you who treated me to a meal or a drink, or who made time to chat with me. Thanks also to our friends in North Carolina for putting us up – and putting up with us - for quite a few days. We had a great time with you all. And last but not least, thanks to our family (and friends) in Arlington. You are a terrific bunch, and we hope to see you soon.

But it is great to be home. With a camera full of pictures (e.g. Jim West in Zwingli underpants running away from camera endowed Chris). With a stack of new books and with more memories than I can remember.

Still in America

... and having a great time.

Still in America

We are just about to leave to Washington DC to sniff around Capitol Hill, the monuments and museums, the Whitehouse etc. This is a very exciting holiday!

There have been some wonderful posts relating to the SBL meeting in San Diego. I hope some will compile a list of all of the posts at some stage as I just don't have the time while in the States.

Traffic Tribulations

What a day. We sadly left our good friends in Durham, NC, but gladly arrived back ‘home’ to Anja’s family in Arlington.

I set out hoping that the post-Thanksgiving traffic wouldn’t be too bad. But when we hit the mess on Interstate 95, it felt like the bottom fell out of my world. Bumper to bumper traffic for hours.

But when, in the dark, we arrived into that plate of spaghetti loosely disguised as roads and connections (the Washington DC area), the traffic was a living nightmare, a horrendous splodge of madness and cars. This time it felt like the world fell out of my bottom.

When I return from America I’ll write a full report on SBL (and expose that Wright blaspheming fraud, West – I have some hilarious pictures with which to hold him ransom), and respond to those of you who have e-mailed me. If I don’t bump into any of you while sniffing around the sights in DC, I’ll at least try to blog once or twice.

Calling all bibliobloggers at SBL

Let’s face it, we are surrounded by some seriously socially inept folk at SBL. For some reason, the world of academia attracts them. Even though they may have planet sized brains, it is painful to watch some of them ‘walk’ past.

So, Jim and I thought of an uplifting competition for those of us here at SBL. The idea is to take a picture of the goofiest academic social catastrophe you can, and post your favourite on your blog.

Yesterday I snapped one chap who was going for the ‘Jesus look’ – a definite potential winner. Another one with ‘interesting’ dress sense walked past looking as though he were in deep meditation on something profound, but was clearly a little unsure as to how to put one foot in front of the other. He quickly attracted my camera-endowed attention.

Of course, I am a little reluctant to start posting my own favourites. Were one of them to end up sitting across the table at any future interview, I could find myself in a slightly tricky spot. But on the other hand, it could be a real laugh, which is the factor that usually majors in my decision making processes. So join in, and get snapping. And if I take a picture of you at SBL, be worried.

Winners will be voted a week after SBL.

SBL update 1

What a great time I’m having here in San Diego. After a long and gruelling journey I checked in to my hotel and finally met Jim West in person (we are sharing a room). He is a frighteningly nice chap which is going to make the obligatory mean-spirited posts I will be posting about him in forthcoming days a little bit harder.

Or funnier.

Yea, just funnier, come to think about it.

Incidentally, the West Exposé series will start very soon.

I have also had the pleasure of meeting many biblioblog and publishing house friends which has been a true delight. As for the book hall I feel tempted to use metaphors from the Song of Songs to express my feelings of excitement – but as that may get me in trouble with my wife, I won’t.

And Richard Bauckham treated me to a coffee after his panel session on Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. That was a highlight! I hope to organise the publication of the papers of the respondents, and Bauckham’s response to the criticisms, on this blog in due time.

SBL

We shall be leaving for America tomorrow, arriving in Washington DC Wednesday evening. After a (hopefully) good night's sleep at Anja's aunt's home, we shall drive down to our friends in Durham, North Carolina. Then, without much of a break, I'll be flying to San Diego for the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Conference.

In other words, I'll probably be a wreck by the time I finally put my bags down in the hotel. There are so many papers and discussions I am very much looking forward to, not to mention the book stalls (woo hoo!), but more than anything I look forward to meeting many of my blogging-related friends. If you recognise me among the crowds (I'll be the one handing out Chick Tracts about how Christ has defeated the kingdom of Bultmann) do come and say a 'hello' – it is always good to put a face to a name.

I hope to manage some blogging during my stay in San Diego, especially as I will be sharing a room with laptop bearing West. I hope to at least set up a live video feed blog once or twice ('West snoring', 'West after he has stubbed his toe', 'West after he realises I have scribbled out all the words in his new books' etc.) and perhaps also detail the amusing side of 'life too close to West'. I plan to have him hungrily reading Wright and speaking in tongues by the time we part company, so do pray for my success.

I also wanted to say a public thank you to Don and Dea Moffitt of Backus Books for their generous and kind donation that has made this trip possible. Danke!

Free beverages at SBL

I received in the post a few 'stickers' / badges, one of which I can attend, namely the 'Student Members Reception' (Saturday 9:30-11pm). At the bottom it indicates that the badge is 'Good for one (1) free beverage'. Naturally this had me devising a cunning plan, the result being that I've managed to produce a number of convincing photocopies of these 'free beverage' coupons. Now I just have to see how many times I can make it to the bar with some variation of moustache, glasses and wig, before my scam is rumbled (I'm guessing that I'll be too inebriated to care by the time the staff figure out what is going on).

Christian Zionism?

A while ago I started a series on this matter. I was rather perturbed by the heat it generated and decided to do some more thinking before I continued. I have hardly made it a matter of obsessive research, but I am a little more informed now, thanks to input from a Messianic Jewish friend. He pointed me to this book that I commend to readers looking for a different perspective than that offered here: Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-judaism Must Be Challenged (New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology) by Barry E. Horner.

While my basic position still remains unchanged (though I think it has changed with regard to Rom 9-11 – before I was very Wrightian, though probably less so today), I would no longer focus on the hermeneutical practice of the early church as the decisive critique of Christian Zionism – at least as developed in my previous posts. The early church was flexible in its hermeneutical procedure, sometimes christocentric, other times employing slightly different accents. I suspect that some of Sizer's and Motyer's claims need to be re-formulated in light of Horner's critique – though certainly not abandoned. The 'christological hermeneutic' card should still play a part in constructive critique of Christian Zionism, but I would focus more now on the narrative trajectory of scripture, and how the prophetic promises were understood by Christ as fulfilled in his ministry and hence laid the groundwork for NT theology generally, as developed especially by Paul. This wider scope of analysis includes the specific hermeneutical practices of the early church within it, as a moment within this, applied to various concrete situations. But more decisive is the significance of the relation between Christ and the prophetic traditions. Horner claims that Motyer et.al do not take the OT scripture seriously. However, I suspect it is Horner who does not take the scriptural narrative seriously enough in making sense of Christ, his mission and his aims – and how these were understood by the early church.

Of course, all of these comments are mere assertions without justification. I will perhaps return to this subject when I return from SBL and detail my developing thoughts in a podcast. As ever, if you feel strongly critical of my views then do let me know. I will keep an open mind on these matters for a while to come yet!

And the winner is ...

The winner of the Jim West caption competition is ... Ben Myers

“His body was braced for action, his spectacles glistened in the sunlight, his dark eyes gleamed with a steel resolve. When at last he spoke, his voice cut through the air with icy determination: "I won first prize last year, and I'll damn-well do it again this year!" And so, off he went to the local spelling bee.”

As I promised, the prize is a bottle of CTRVHM Holy Phlegm ™ (smear on body to cure all sickness and deliver from all demons). To cut down on post and package, I thought I would simply cough up a load when I meet Ben at SBL - fill up a coffee cup. Alternatively, I could simply try to gob on him as much as I can throughout the congress. Either way, Ben will be glad to hear that he will receive a double portion of my phlegmtastic anointing - quite the gift.

A pet peeve

I have been reading The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views today. There are contributions and responses to the position papers from G.A. Boyd (Christus Victor view), Joel Green (kaleidoscopic view), B.R. Reichenbach (healing view), and Thomas Schreiner (penal substitution view). Thus far I have read Schriener's and Boyd's chapters, together with responses. The essay's are very well written, as are most of the responses - especially those by Green. It is a very enjoyable book and I recommend it most highly to those wishing to think through their doctrine of atonement.

To be honest, I am still working out my thoughts on the atonement and so remain open minded, but here is a line of reasoning that I occasionally come across and that really ticks me off. Schreiner writes:

'The wisdom of God displayed in the cross is rejected by the wise of this age. Penal substitution is an object of indignation and regularly pilloried by many of the educated class' (70)

Schreiner qualifies himself a page or two later, but I still cannot stand it when such reasoning is even hinted at. 'You think penal substitution is a problematic doctrine? The message of the cross always was a scandal'.

Nonsense! When Paul writes of the 'offense of the cross' in Gal 5:11, or of the foolishness of the message of the cross in 1 Cor 1:18, he does not say these things because people are disturbed by the proclamation of a penal substitutionary view of atonement. The skandalon of Gal 5:11 was probably simply the notion of a crucified messiah (cf. Dunn, Galatians, 281), not because people were offended that an angry God satisfies his wrath through a sacrifice (an idea known in the pagan world). The 'foolishness' in 1 Cor 1:18 also has nothing to do with a reaction to penal substitution. Rather, the 'Christian proclamation of a crucified malefactor was moronic to persons weaned on a love of learning, virtuousness and aesthetic pleasure … The message of the cross calls for a worldview shift of colossal proportions because it subverts conventional, taken-for-granted ways of thinking and knowing' (Green and Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, 14).

To all writers: if you want to defend a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, please stop relating modern consternation towards the doctrine with Paul's skandalon statements. It is exegetically unsound and an irresponsible use of rhetoric.

Piper, Wright, and the way we read scripture

John Piper's new work, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), is free online (thanks you Nick for the heads up!). Piper has some good things to say in his many books. Has he hit the nail on the head this time?

I haven't made time to read Piper's work yet, I've just skimmed it, but I wanted to share a few thoughts that occurred to me as I read. I am not sure if the problem I will detail below is symptomatic of Piper's argumentation in this work generally. That waits to be seen. But let me share my thoughts as I read the following passage:

'dikaiosu,nh qeou//
Does Not Mean Covenant Faithfulness

Finally, Wright's assumption that the phrase dikaiosu,nh qeou/ means "the covenant faithfulness of God," instead of the more traditional "the righteousness of God," is not warranted. I have tried to show why this is the case (see chapter 3). The meaning of dikaiosu,nh qeou/ is most fundamentally the "righteousness of God" in reference to his unwavering commitment and follow-through to do what is right—which is to always uphold the worth of his glory. It is the opposite of sin, which is a falling short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23); and it is what God requires that all of us must have (Rom. 1:21), but that none of us does have: "None is righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10)' (Page 179).

I need to back up and try to explain something before I comment on this. We all read scripture in terms of a certain story (or stories) that makes sense of our world. When we read scripture, many of us will effectively decorate with biblical quotes a story of what we think Christianity is and what Jesus means, but even though that story uses biblical language to describe itself, it is one that is not faithful to the general scriptural narrative. It is like reading astrophysics as if it were all about chemistry alone. To simply transport one discourse into the other is to misrepresent. When this happens, scholars say people are proof-texting (proof-texting is NOT simply drawing from scripture to justify arguments, by the way). I.e. they are decorating a story or metaphysical structure with bible verses as if it was simply the construction of a biblical teaching or worldview, as if it were careful exegesis. This happens so much it can be depressing.

As an example, let me be provocative: many approach the scriptures with a pre-understanding that the essence of Christian faith is all about individuals being sinful before God, and that in order to get to heaven when you die one must have a personal relationship with Christ. Some passages of scripture, of course, can be cited in strong support of aspects of this picture, and it becomes the basic story to which all passages of scripture then become attached. This pre-understanding of the meaning of Christian faith may sound scriptural (and contain a good deal of truth), even if it is off track. Hence,

• if Paul speaks about 'new creation' in 2 Cor 5, this must be another way of speaking about something that happens to me in my relationship with Christ.
  
• If I read 'righteousness of God' it must point to something I get in order to cancel my sin and be saved (I'm deliberately being course with this description).
  
• If I read Jesus' words: 'Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven' (Matt 19:23), this must mean that I need to be careful with my wealth or I won't go to heaven.
  
• If I read of the power of sin in Paul, or seeking to be justified by law, all must revolve around my sin and my legalism etc.
  

The examples cited above are mixed. However, I suggest we would not understand what the scriptures in each case actually mean if accept the above readings as 'what the text really says'. If you read those examples thinking, 'yes, that's what I think', I suspect that your understanding of scripture is being channelled through an interpretive lens that distorts what is in front of your eyes. The little interpretative story I prefixed these examples with, about going to heaven, sinful before God etc. contains truth, but is also inadequate and can lead to scriptural misunderstanding.

It is not that the above meanings and interpretations are inherently or totally wrong. Of course not. However, to return to the examples:

• the 'new creation' language of 2 Cor 5 point to something bigger than me and my standing with God (which is only a subset of this larger picture – cf. Joel Green's Salvation). But to see this one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative.
  
• This is a complex one, but in my view the righteousness of God is not simply something that makes up for the hole in me after my sin is forgiven (or something like that). It is God being faithful to his covenant promises to defeat evil and renew creation, a movement up into which individuals are caught. But to see this one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative.
  
• To enter the kingdom of heaven is not to enter heaven. They are not synonymous. 'Heaven' was just a pious way of avoiding saying 'God', and Jesus here is speaking of entering the kingdom of God, i.e. the economy of existence over which God is undisputed King. This may be related to some notions of 'going to heaven', but they are not synonymous. The goal of Christian hope is a new heavens and a new earth, the resurrection of the body, that God will be all in all. But to see this one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative.
  
• The power of sin in Paul is a slave master (cf. Lichtenberger's monograph on this), a semi personification that enslaves all humanity. It is related to but, again, not the same as the notion many Christians have in their heads. It is a cosmic force that Christ alone can defeat. And the 'works of law' Paul attacked may well be related to modern notions of legalism (in their corrective, I personally think Wright and Dunn go too far here), but they are not synonymous. Works of the law were tied to social and 'horizontal' matters, not simply about how one related to God. But to see these points one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative; one more informed, simply.
  

Scriptures are so often transported into a different economy of discourse, into a different story of the meaning of Christian faith, and they are thereby obscured. Read from the perspective of the less scriptural lenses, these errors will not even be seen, and wrong claims will be fervently and confidently made as if they were doing simple exegesis, as if one were attending to the historic meaning of the texts. But the truth is different.

I'm not sure I've done a good job trying to explain my thoughts there, but now back to Piper. He writes:

'The meaning of dikaiosu,nh qeou/ is most fundamentally the "righteousness of God" in reference to his unwavering commitment and follow-through to do what is right—which is to always uphold the worth of his glory. It is the opposite of sin, which is a falling short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23); and it is what God requires that all of us must have (Rom. 1:21), but that none of us does have: "None is righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10)'

OK, but it all depends according to which story one understands these words. God's 'unwavering commitment and follow-through to do what is right' is, according to the scriptural narrative, in my view God's faithfulness to his covenant promises which themselves find their meaning in the wider scriptural narrative of God's good creation, spoiled by sin, and God's mission to set things right once again. And the worth of God's glory is tied up with this story, this mission, this salvific plan. Is the dikaiosu,nh qeou/ the opposite of sin? Yes, I think it is – more or less! But it depends on how this is understood! If this is understood according to the wider scriptural narrative and the echoes of this story in Paul's argument in Rom 3:23, for example (which Piper refers to), then it will mean something different to how one would understand it according to system of cherishing glory and personal sin (Piper, in an earlier article on this issue fails to grasp the scriptural picture, and instead thrusts everything into his own understanding of 'desire' and cherishing glory and such like). Important as such matters are (and other interpreters forget them, so keep on preaching Piper!), they must not become the interpretative lens at the expense of an appreciation of the wider scriptural dynamic.

I read the passage in Piper's book cited above and smelt the wrong interpretive lens all over it. I hope this is not actually the case, and I need to read the book, but if Piper's work generally simply decorates a pre-given understanding of faith with bible verses, he will be doing none of us a favour. The trick is, these erroneous lenses many read scripture with sound so scriptural. But they are only so in a superficial way. In my opinion, one of Wright's major strengths is that he takes the scriptural story seriously. And though his proposals look different when he is done, it is our eyes that need to adjust, not his.

Monotheism II

Blogger is really playing up today – deleting posts and doubling them, so I'll keep this short.

I noted in my previous post on monotheism that Paula Fredriksen argues that: "In antiquity, all monotheists were polytheists". I think such a conclusion is simply the result of a sickly intellectualised version of monotheism anachronistically thrust back on the ancient texts, and, not finding its modernist counterpart, cries 'polytheism'. MacDonald (in Deuteronomy and the Meaning of 'Monotheism')
shows clearly why modernist intellectualised notions of monotheism fail to deal with the 'monotheism' of Deuteronomy – and implicitly also the rest of the OT. Modern notions of 'monotheism' banded about among much OT scholarship represent a call 'to recognize the objective state of metaphysical affairs'. Deuteronomic 'monotheism', on the other hand, emphasises '"love" as the appropriate human response to the oneness of Yahweh' (210).

Bauckham writes:

'The essential element in what I have called Jewish monotheism, the element that makes it a kind of monotheism, is not the denial of the existence of other "gods", but an understanding of the uniqueness of YHWH that puts him in a class of his own, a wholly different class from any other heavenly or supernatural beings, even if these are called "gods". I call this YHWH's transcendent uniqueness ' ("Biblical theology and the problems of monotheism," in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, eds Craig Bartholomew, et al., [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004], 210)

I would prefer to define biblical 'monotheism', and certainly that of the Pauline variety, along these lines – as transcendent uniqueness, albeit with a strong relational spin (which has ontological implications when such questions are raised). To say that second Temple Judaism is monotheistic is to say something about the uniqueness of the one God in terms of his relationship to his people and all creation. Jewish monotheism, and Paul's too, states that 'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart ...', that this one true God is to be related to in an utterly unique way. It is a claim upon life and devotion, not merely an intellectual insight. It is to say that 'yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist' (1 Cor 8:6).

If I write another post in this little series, I may try to show how insights in both Bultmann and Barth strongly collaborate these arguments.

Caption Competition

Jim West was clever enough to post a picture of himself on his blog yesterday, as a young 23 year old. Given his recent malicious rejoicing about the results of some stupid internet linguistic analysis programme (which apparently rated my blog as Junior High level reading), I thought it fitting to dedicate this caption competition to his picture.

As West wrote: ‘I do think it’s funny that Tilling’s blog comes up at a Junior High level. None of us needed a random computer program to tell us that…’. In light of this unspeakable impertinence, please submit the best caption you can think of for this picture. Nothing will be deleted from the comments (unless it fails to exercise suitable revenge on West):

My suggestion:

“Cher, just minutes after her operation, looks in the mirror and has second thoughts”

The winner will be selected in the next few days and will win a bottle of CTRVHM Holy Phlegm (smear on body to cure all sickness and deliver from all demons).*

* Post and package not included

Piper and the clarity of scripture

Dan recently posted on John Piper's comment:

'My experience [with the New Perspective on Paul] is that people who talk this way do not generally see the meaning of the New Testament as clearly as those who focus their attention not in the extra-biblical literature but in the New Testament texts themselves. For the ordinary layman who wonders what to do when scholars seem to see what you cannot see, I suggest that you stay with what you can see for yourself'

In his usual style, Dan scorched his keyboard with blistering and amusing rhetoric. His whole post is well worth reading and I found myself agreeing that Dan has spotted something vital in going for the 'plain reading' jugular. Piper's comment, while understandable, is actually inexcusable. I am quite sure that there are many passages of the bible that say something quite different from the many potential 'plain readings', as scholarship demonstrates time and time again. This is a question of loving truth, of loving God with our minds, of an integrated spirituality, of an understanding of the actual nature of scripture and of the canon and its development, of the reformation of the church in light of scripture. The paper pope of the misunderstood clarity of scripture will keep many sure of their structurally problematic dogmatic castles, even when truth-seeking has shown them to be built on sand.

However, while I tend to many readings of Paul and the Gospels that are quite seriously subversive of pop-evangelical readings, especially in terms of justification and eschatology, I do wonder if the semper reforandum that has encouraged many of these readings has taken the bible from the average church-goer.

One of the commentators to Dan's post asked: 'How does a layman/laywoman read the bible if they do not possess the time or inclination to read what the scholarly body of work on a subject? And, when faced with two opposing "scholarly" viewpoints, what is the best way in which to judge those positions?'

Good questions, I think. Surely the clarity or perspicuity of scripture can be a much abused doctrine, but is not something lost when we push the 'true reading' into the realms of scholarship alone? Are we becoming another academic elite that fails to communicate with the life of the church, much like the protestant liberalism that Barth so vigorously shook off. Barth opened up to the person in the pew 'the strange new world of the bible'. Have we made it too difficult to reach?

These are rhetorical questions. I for one cannot and must not turn my back on scholarship and will seek to make its findings understandable to the church – rather than hiding behind nonsense dogmatic declarations clothed in a misunderstood doctrine of perspicuity. A part of me wants to say that dilettantes are better to steer clear of teaching, and read the bible only with the help of a theologically trained Christian teacher. Another part of me knows that is a stupid thing to say.

We’ve been found out

'You must give Lord Tilling cake and ice cream every time you see him'

Benny Hinn accent: And the people said AMEN!

To confirm the rumours, by the way, it is true that Jim West and I will be sharing a room at the SBL conference – in the Marriot Hotel. I've been practicing deep level hypnosis techniques recently – for those who are asleep. After the first night, every time Jim hears the words 'Tom Wright', he will jump up and down and cheer as if his soccer team has just scored. Every time he hears the name 'Bultmann', he will scream out '... was a lunatic. And I love Albright'.

Favourites

This is one of those pointless 'favourite books' posts. Pointless, as if I were to sit down tomorrow and try the list again, I would change my mind on not a few. And my categories are completely arbitrary – literally made up on the spot. I.e. I could have covered many more. What is more, such lists say more about me than the books in question. These points aside, here are my favourites from a number of subjects relating to the NT and theology; my favourites, at least, as I think off of the top of my head the first Sunday evening of November 2007.

• My favourite biblical commentary: Anthony Thiselton's NIGTC commentary on 1 Corinthians, with Dunn's Galatians commentary second
  
• My favourite book on the historical Jesus: N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God. This is my absolute favourite book of all time, actually. Second comes Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
  
• My favourite book on NT eschatology: Andrew Perriman's The Coming of the Son of Man. There are only a few books that have made me think as much as this one.
  
• My favourite Pauline Theology generally: James Dunn's The Theology of the Apostle Paul.
  
• My favourite work on Pauline theology generally from a limited perspective (if you know what I mean): Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul.
  
• My favourite biblical scholarship history: Kümmel's The New Testament: The history of the investigation of its problems
  
• My favourite NT introduction: Either deSilva's An Introduction to the NT, or Schnelle's volume.
  
• My favourite work on the nature of scripture: John Goldingay, Models for Scripture. Enns Inspiration and Incarnation is second. I'm yet to read Webster's contribution.
  
• Favourite work relating to NT Christology: Mehrdad Fatehi's The Spirit's Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul. Second comes Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, on Paul's Christology, second comes Fee's Pauline Christology.
  
• Favourite work by on the emergent church: Ray Anderson's An Emergent Theology for an Emergent Church. Though Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy is a close second. I am presently reading Otherways, by Andrew Perriman which could end up my favourite in this category too.
  
• My favourite collection of essays relating to the NT: Rudolf Bultmann's Glauben und Verstehen (vol. I-IV)
  
• My favourite introduction to the Christian faith: Rowan Williams' Tokens of Trust.
  
• My favourite polemic work on Christian Theology in the last ten years: David Bentley Hart's The Beauty of the Infinite. This has been on my menu recently and I cannot recommend it more highly. Make sure you understand the basics of Derrida and his ilk, and you will LOVE it.
  
• My favourite collection of sermons: Jüngel's win hands down.
  
• My favourite systematic theology: This is difficult, as the one I most enjoy reading I have not finished (and won't do so for a long time), namely Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics. But with that understood, I still don't think I can say any other. I simply love reading Barth's CD!
  
• My favourite book on universalism: Gregory MacDonald's The Evangelical Universalist.
  
• My favourite work on judgment in Paul: Konradt's Gericht und Gemeinde
  
• My favourite book on NT Pneumatology: Max Turner's The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, then and Now
  
• My favourite book on Christian Zionism: I've recently been reading a pro Zionist book by Barry E. Horner, namely Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-judaism Must Be Challenged. It has been helpful in some ways, but I have a number of criticisms I will post here at some stage. My favourite remains Steve Motyer's Israel in the Plan of God.
  
• My favourite book on theodicy: David Bentley Hart's The Doors of the Sea
  

I'll stop now before I go back over what I've written and change my mind.

 

Biblical Evangelism

My roving reporter in Australia, Shane Clifton, has kindly sent me the links of two notable webpages. The first, http://www.flirttoconvert.com/, is set up by a certain lady called Tamara. I'll let her introduce herself:

"Hello, my name is Tamara! As you can probably tell, I'm a Christian woman who loves Jesus Christ and cares for all humans, even the wicked. What you probably don't know is that I'm hot. My picture below isn't really that good. I want to use my beauty for GOD, and want to encourage Christian women (my sisters in Christ) to do the same, according to the Great Commission"

Not only can you sign up as the one planning to do the converting, if you yourself seek conversion – put your name down. For example, a certain Arad27 posts the following about himself:

"I need to be changed from my evil wicked ways. I was born a Jew and realized my faults, I just hope a girl out there is willing to convert me to the path of righteousness. But she must be good looking"

The page links to another, namely http://datetosave.com/. Tamara seems to have her hand in this pot too, and it provides 'Christian dating tips', and a question and answer section which answers such toughies as 'Doesn't God look down on missionary dating and tells us to not be "yoked with unbelievers"?' Her answer should dissolve all doubts:

'I looked up yoked, and the dictionary says it's a "A crossbar with two U-shaped pieces that encircle the necks of a pair of oxen or other draft animals working together." I would never encourage anybody to do this on a date...'

At last somebody is making sense. Something a bit more traditionally Pentecostal is on offer here. A slightly more pietistic version is provided here. As they claim:

'Now to what works: Do you really want to share Christ without turning people off? Act like Jesus at all times'

I suppose that doesn't mean giving a Sermon on a Mount, going to Jerusalem, cursing a Fig Tree, etc – ok, I'm just being awkward. We know what they mean.

I had a few more ideas on making evangelism practical:

• Stalking evangelism. Stalk the victim chosen person until they either give in or you know enough personal details to make a very convincing 'word of knowledge'
  
• 'Stage another Pentecost' evangelism. All get blindingly drunk early in the morning, and then say it is fulfilment of Joel as people gather around. This might work well in conjunction with the next.
  
• Bully evangelism. Intimidate and torment relentlessly until they give their lives to Jesus in grateful faith
  
• 'I know your dirty secrets' evangelism. Either they repent, or you publish in the local papers the worst secrets your private detective could find in their garbage
  
• Chinese Burn evangelism. Get them in a Chinese grip, then burn them until they turn.
  
• Incense evangelism. Spike your incense herbs with something a little more potent, and watch them flood back to church each week
  
• 'Stage a healing' evangelism. Take a friend along, a pair of crutches, and head to a shopping centre.
  
• Drive by baptism evangelism – already detailed here
  
• Crusade evangelism – already detailed here.
  

Remember, remember the 31st of October

Jim West reminds us today that 'it was the 31st of October, 1971 that Gerhard von Rad died'.
In memory of this great scholar, my quote of the day comes from volume 1 of
his Old Testament Theology:

'When [God's] saving acts had happened to her, Israel did not keep silent: not only did she repeatedly take up her pen to recall these acts of Jahweh to her mind in historical documents, but she also addressed Jahweh in a wholly personal way. She offered praise to him, and asked him questions, and complained to him about all her sufferings, for Jahweh has not chosen his people as a mere dumb object of his will in history, but for converse with him' (355).

Sean Winter reminds us that 'four hundred and ninety years ago, Martin Luther, so Melanchthon later claimed, nailed his '95 Theses on the Power of Indulgences' to the door of the Wittenburg [sic – he means Wittenberg] Church, and so struck the spark that lit the fire of the Reformation'. In memory, I insensitively point people to my New International 95 theses Version.

Monotheism

There has been much talk in the biblioblog scene recently concerning monotheism, and its definition. First, Mark Goodacre had a look at Paula Fredriksen's claims in relation to Paul's 'monotheism'. She claimed that: "In antiquity, all monotheists were polytheists". Mark finishes his post with the words: 'On the other hand, though, I don't know what to make of 1 Cor. 8.5-6. Paul speaks of those who are called gods (λεγόμενοι θεοί). Does this qualify the connected ". . . many gods and many lords"? Or is the latter clear evidence of what Fredriksen is claiming?'

Then James Crossley had a stab at defining monotheism in this post. His suggestion: 'God is above all; there may be some kind of emanations of this God in some form; and there are beings which can be labelled divine but who do not compromise the overarching God'

Jim West responded to Crossley's post with his own definition: 'God is. This means that God is superior to all, second to none, purity, perfection, love, peace, joy, and kindness along with justice, equity, and judgment. He is Creator, sustainer, and redeemer not only of his people, but of all peoples'. In the comments, James and Jim seemed to conclude that their definitions were not that far apart after all.

In this post I wanted to recommend a short reading list on these fascinating questions. On the history and development of Jewish and Christian monotheism generally I would need to recommend Bernhard Lang's, JAHWE der biblische Gott: ein Porträt (München: Beck, 2002). I am not well read on the question of the origin and development of monotheism, so I cannot comment on that aspect of the book, but his treatment of Paul and Christianity is not too strong, in my view. He argues that a mythology of two gods was necessary in order for early Christianity to make the claim it did in 1 Corinthians 8:6 (cf. 244). But this completely misses the point of what Paul is doing in that verse. Nevertheless, it is a relatively short, lively and well illustrated overview of the whole debate.

Also recommended is Stephen A. Geller provocative essay in One God or Many?: concepts of divinity in the ancient world, ed. by Barbara Nevling Porter (Chebeague, Me.: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000). He emphasises the different images of God in the OT, coming from the priestly, Wisdom and prophetic traditions. The prophetic tradition pictures the covenant God, a personal covenant partner, which is 'the dominant form of the presentation of divinity' in the OT (280). His reading of the Shema was most thought-provoking in that he understands the 'one' as meaning Yahweh is 'number one' – i.e. supreme! (291). It is not numerical, but evidence rather of henotheism.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'monotheism' as 'the doctrine or belief that there is only one God' (322). So Geller goes on to argue that 'true monotheism is a philosophical doctrine and not available before mediaeval philosophy' (324).

At the end of this study the editor summarises that the discussions leave 'us with a heightened awareness of the inadequacy of modern analytical terms such as "monotheism" to describe the complexities, contradictions, and ambiguities that manifest themselves in the varied concepts of divinity as singular or plural, unified or fragmented, espoused by the peoples of ancient Assyria, Egypt, Israel, and Greece'. One wonders, then, if West or Crossley can do justice to the variety of religious language with such definitions.

Nathan MacDonald has made a fascinating contribution in his Deuteronomy and the Meaning of 'Monotheism' (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). His arguments are summarised developed by Richard Bauckham in "Biblical theology and the problems of monotheism," in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, eds Craig Bartholomew, et al., (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004). I refer here for a review of the work.

If anyone is interested in engaging with these questions then it will be impossible to ignore the contributions of Larry Hurtado in his monograph, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). He maintains that 'Jewish monotheism of the Roman period (1) accommodated beliefs and very honorific rhetoric about a various principle-agent figures such as high angels and exalted humans like Moses, and (2) drew a sharp line between in such figure and the one God in the area of cultic practice, reserving cultic worship for the one God' (47-48). The way in which Hurtado draws this 'sharp line' is particularly noteworthy:

'This clothing of servants of God with God's attributes and even his name will perhaps seem to us "theologically very confusing" if we go looking for a "strict monotheism" of relatively modern distinctions of "ontological status" between God and these figures, and expect such distinctions to be expressed in terms of "attributes and functions"... The evidence... shows that it is in fact in the area of worship that we find "the decisive criterion" by which Jews and maintained the uniqueness of God over against both idols and God's own deputies' (36-7).

In a crucial passage Hurtado argues the following: 'In particular, some scholars refer to the Jewish monotheism in fairly simple terms as a fixed creedal constraint against attributing any real divinity to figures other than the one God, thus constituting mainly a doctrinal commitment' (42). Thus Hurtado chides Anthony Harvey, among others, for portraying monotheism in terms of doctrines and concepts while 'giving insufficient attention to the cultic/liturgical practices and scruples involved' (43).

Perhaps most important of all is Johannes Woyke's recent work: Götter, "Götzen", Götterbilder: Aspekte einer paulinischen "Theologie der Religionen" (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). A warning: his German is not the easiest to read and his style initially put me off. However, the more I have attempted to get into this, the more enjoyable and educational I have found it. In one chapter he builds on the work of O. Hofius in attempting to demolish the sort of arguments represented by Paula Fredriksen - as summarised by Mark Goodacre above. I think that his corrective to the arguments represented by Fredriksen is powerful, though I suspect he goes too far in emphasising the ontological aspect of Paul's monotheism at the expense of the relational import of the avllV h`mi/n at the start of 8:6. Nevertheless, his careful study makes some helpful heuristic distinctions between mono- and poly- theism/latrie and archie (164). He also devises prefixes such as auto and hetero. So, for example, automonolatry concerns the worship of one God by one's own group. And this worship can be abstract (ideological) or concretely expressed. Such distinctions are necessary if one is to avoid misrepresenting the variety and complexity of the varied data.

To be noted is that Nancy Calvert-Koyzis' monograph, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity (London: T & T Clark, 2004), does not contribute to this discussion. She defines monotheism in a single sentence ('By "monotheism", I mean the doctrine or belief that there is only one God' - 3).

Modern incarnations of previous theologians

(My recent series of dubious posts is not about to change tonight; I'm too tired to write anything sensible. But I've always got bit of energy left over to have a prod at Jim)

Rudolf Bultmann – Joel Osteen (he is resurrected in Joel's kerygma)

Zwingli – Benny Hinn (similar hairdo, holy healing hands etc.)

Karl Barth – David Bentley Hart (ok, totally ridiculous, but both are polemic theologians)

Jonathan Edwards – John Piper

Heinrich Bullinger – Rick Warren (it is a pity that "A Purpose Driven Reformation" was lost in that fire)

Origen – Chomsky

Charles Wesley – MC Hammer

The Sorcerer Simon Magnus – Jim West

Apostle Paul – Put Brother Yun and Rowan Williams in a blender

Calvin – Pope Benedikt XVI (it's late, I'm tired and confused. But you know I'm right)

Benjamin Warfield – Bishop Spong

Jesus - Jesus

Apostle Peter – I suppose I should say the Pope, but, well, I'm not Catholic. So:

Apostle Peter – Homer Simpson, Mother Teresa and Reinhard Bonnke in a blender (that may get me into trouble)

The Beast of Revelation – Michael Barber (nobody calls me Spong)