The New Testament Round Table

Guest Post on Evil and the Justice of God

2007-10-25T08:34:00.000-05:00

N. T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham, has garnered a reputation for, to borrow the title of his most recent work on Paul, ‘fresh perspectives’. In his recent Evil and the Justice of God (London/Downers Grove: SPCK/IVP, 2006), Wright provides another fresh perspective, this time on the problem of evil. Addressing his subject as a biblical scholar rather than as a philosopher, he judges that the Scriptures perceive and portray the ‘problem of evil’ much differently than what is typical of philosophical accounts. Inherent to his project, then, is the attempt to redefine biblically both the problem of evil and what counts as an adequate solution. His basic argument is captured in the following statement: ‘Evil isn’t simply a philosophers’ puzzle, but a reality which stalks our streets and damages people’s lives, homes and property. The quest for a solution is not the quest for an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of why evil is there in the first place, but the search for ways in which the healing, restorative justice of the creator God himself, which will one day suffuse the whole creation, can be brought to bear in advance of that ultimate reality, within the present world of space, time, matter and the messy realities of human lives and societies’ (p. 98). Wright thus outlines a salvation-historical solution to the biblical problem of evil.

The first chapter is an exercise in cultural interpretation. Here, Wright uncovers several inadequate responses to evil that stem either from modern optimism or postmodern nihilism. Chapter 2 expounds the problem of evil in biblical perspective. Wright finds that biblical evil is that which sidetracks the Creator’s purpose by corrupting the creatures charged with creation’s care. The biblical solution to evil, then, is the historical redemption of humanity through Israel and, ultimately, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, Wright in chapter 3 turns to the cross where God’s redemptive purposes with Israel reach their climax and fulfillment. The Gospels, according to Wright, narrate the ways in which God in Jesus Christ draws evil onto himself, ‘exhausts’ its power in the cross, and inaugurates the new creation of the world through the resurrection. Christus Victor is for Wright the root metaphor of the atonement after which ‘all other theories [of atonement] come in to play their respective parts’ (p. 59), and new creation is God’s solution to evil. Interestingly, ‘forgiveness of sins’ is interpreted by Wright as ‘release’ from the corrupting effects of evil and thus is synonymous with ‘resurrection’; both are acts of new creation since both purge evil and restore creatures to their original dignity.

How might the church participate in God’s solution to evil? Wright argues in chapter 4 that since God’s solution to evil is the new creation in which evil is absent then believers are to "imagine" this new world. Such, says Wright, will provoke Christians to positive social action. Chapter 5 explicates forgiveness as the present mode of participation in God’s solution to evil for forgiveness anticipates the new creation by releasing both victim and victimizer from the alienating effects of interpersonal evil. Salvation and forgiveness, not conceptual clarity and answered questions, is the real solution to the real problem of evil.

Wright’s proposal here is provocative, refreshing, and rooted in pastorally sensitive canonical exegesis. And while his attempt to supplant the philosophical problem is probably more distracting than satisfying to the philosophers, it can hardly be denied that his biblical account of evil and its salvation-historical solution helpfully redirects the philosophical debates and refocuses them upon the Bible (a testimony to Wright’s commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture). Given philosophy’s monopoly on the subject, this biblically-oriented approach is a significant addition to the literature.

For a fuller review, see my review forthcoming in Heythrop Journal.

James R. A. Merrick
King’s College, University of Aberdeen

Guest Post Announcement

2007-10-25T04:48:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, one of the new Ph.D. students here (James Merrick) asked me to look over a book-review he was submitting to Heythrop Journal on N. T. Wright's, Evil and the Justice of God. Having read the review, I found Wright's book quite interesting and decided to ask James if he would be interested in posting a shorter version of his review on this blog. Thankfully, he accepted my invitation.

By way of introduction, James is doing a PhD in Systematic Theology and is doing research on the role of tradition in Karl Barth's theology. James previously studied at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he completed an M. A. in Christian Thought and a Th.M. in Church History. He is also an ordained Anglican minister and served for three years as deacon and rector at The Church of Christ the King (Evanston, IL). Finally, James has been married for five years to his college sweetheart, Allison.

J. Muddiman on the Authorship of Ephesians

2007-09-28T09:16:00.000-05:00

One of the issues related to Ephesians I will have to eventually explore in my research is the thorny "question" of its authorship. This is, of course, only natural at this level of study. True, I could simply bypass the discussion by taking some sort of literary stance that obviates historical questions. But, while I do plan to employ a literary methodology (specifically, inter-textuality), I tend to think that my research on Ephesians might help us better understand statements in the "genuine" Pauline letters. At any rate, I just finished looking at the introduction to J. Muddiman's commentary on Ephesians and thought I would provide a little summary of his interesting proposal.

Muddiman begins by raising questions regarding the supposed dependence of Ephesians on Colossians. Muddiman notes that Ephesians is not as similar to Colossians as often argued and that if someone has created Ephesians by editing Colossians, then this really person "has transcribed only one short paragraph (6.21-2)" (pg. 32). Rather than outright accepting Pauline authorship of Ephesians, Muddiman basically proposes that a genuine letter of Paul has been edited and this document has become the canonical "Letter to the Ephesians."

While I can appreciate the historical problems raised by what one finds in Ephesians, I do have to wonder if it is stilll necessary to erect this chasm between the Paul of the "genuine" letters and the author of Ephesians. I do appreciate how close Muddiman comes at times to accepting Pauline authorship of Ephesians. For example, in discussing the theology of Ephesians, Muddiman states, "some theological emphases in Ephesians are sufficiently different and later than Paul . . . but they sit alongside authentic expressions of Paul's own distinctive emphases" (20). Muddiman seemingly sees the author of Ephesians as at once different from the "true" Paul (whoever that is) but at the same time quite faithful to Paul. No doubt Ephesians is unique. Yet, it is this uniqueness (possibly arising from its historical purpose) that while making it difficult to accept Pauline authorship, also makes it difficult to develop satisfactory alternatives. In the end, accepting Pauline authorship is at least as viable as any other proposal and should thus receive more credibility from the academy.

Back in business

2007-09-19T09:33:00.001-05:00

Sorry for the lack of posting over the past few months. We spent most of the summer spending time with family and getting lots of R & R. At any rate, we have finally arrived in Aberdeen and are settling in quite well (amazingly enough). I should be able to get back to more consistent blogging as my research develops.

The Best Commentary on 2 Corinthians(?)

2007-04-27T12:38:00.000-05:00

I finally finished my review of Murray J. Harris' "The Second Epistle to the Corinthians" for Faith & Mission. Anyway, I'm pretty well convinced that this has to be the best commentary on 2 Corinthians. Given how much I love Barnett's commentary in the NICNT series, that really is saying something! Here are what I perceive to be the strength's of this commentary (in no particular order):

1) its massive bibliography (102 pages), which is supplemented by the bibliographies provided at the end of his discussion of each passage;
2) its extensive introduction dealing with historical, literary, and theological issues (Harris gives an able defense of the letter's unity and interestingly argues that Paul's "opponents" are a combination of i) proto-Gnostics; ii) Palestinian Judaizers)
3) its readability (Harris certainly doesn't avoid technical issues - consider the series, after all - but I got the sense that he was aiming to write a very "reader-oriented" commentary)
4) its lengthy discussion (45 pages!) of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 (Harris essentially suggests Paul is here arguing that believers who die before the parousia - Harris argues that v. 6-10 do not refer to the parousia - are in the immediate presence of God but are nonetheless in some sort of disembodied state; cf. J. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting)
5) its extended paraphrase that helps clarify the exegetical decisions outlined in the commentary proper (those who opposed dynamic equivalence translations would certainly disagree but I would love to see more publishers include extended paraphrases in future exegetical commentaries) .

Undoubtedly, a proper NT library would need to include more than this single volume on 2 Corinthians. At the same time, one could not have a proper NT library without it!

Mark Taylor on the Structure of James (Part 4)

2007-03-22T09:56:00.001-05:00

Here's my fourth post on M. Taylor's, A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James. The next few posts will probably concentrate on Taylor's sixth (and final) chapter on the structure of James. Since this is probably the most important (and detailed) chapter in the book, I'll probably do one post for every chapter in the actual letter of James. Here is a summary of Taylor's analysis of James 1.

* Taylor begins his discussion of James 1 by noting that most scholars now see this chapter as a summation of central ideas and themes that will be discussed in the remainder of the letter (i.e., an introduction)
* Taylor suggests that the author develops James 1 as an introduction by:
i. the creation of a double inclusion at 1:2–4 and 1:12, 25 through the notion of being blessed when one endures trials (100)
ii. parallels between James 1 and James 2:1–13 (see above)
iii. the clustering of third-person imperatives in James 1:4–19 and James 5:12–20 (such verb forms occur only elsewhere at James 3:13 and 4:9)
iv. the transitional nature of James 1:26–27, which serves something of a foundational role for the remaining instruction
* Regarding the actual structure of James 1, Taylor places great stress on the 'double inclusion' he discerns at 1:2-4, 12 and 1:12, 25. On the basis of this 'double inclusion', Taylor argues that 1:13-27 is "a balanced literary unit in close relationship to 1.2-12" (104). Taylor also argues that the repeated references to deception (1:16, 22, 26) should play an important role in this discussion.
* Taylor proposes the following parallel arrangement of James 1:2-27:
i. 1:2–4 =The Spiritual Benefit of Trials// 1:13–15 =Don’t Be Deceived Regarding Temptation
ii. 1:5–8 =The Need for Righteous Wisdom// 1:16–25 =Don’t Be Deceived Regarding Righteous Wisdom
iii. 1:9–11 =Wise Attitudes for Rich and Poor// 1:26–27 =Don’t Be Deceived Regarding Religious Practice.

A few comments are certainly in order. First, I find Taylor's discussion of the relationship between James 1 and the remainder of the letter extremely helpful. This is especially true of his suggestions regarding the use of imperatives in James 1 and 5, as well as the central role of James 1:26-27. I also think his summary descriptions of the individual sections of James 1 generally represent the author's thought. However, I'm not entirely convinced that James 1:16-25 should be read together (Taylor himself notes the presence of several major breaks at 1:18-19 and 1:20-21; these observations are probably pertinent at this point).
Finally, while I'm open to the presence of a 'double inclusion' in James 1 (Taylor seems to suggest that to "persevere" in v. 25 parallels "remaining steadfast under trial" in v. 12; note also the repetition of the adjective "blessed" in v. 25), at this point I'm only comfortable stating that the presence of this inclusion need not require one interpret James 1:2-12 and James 1:13-27 in parallel fashion, as Taylor does. The key factor would be the internal data and if James 1:16-25 should be broken into two or three individual sections (as I suggest above), the internal data would not seem to allow for this parallel arrangement. Nonetheless, Taylor's analysis seems quite thorough and his proposal very intriguing. More study on this point is certainly needed.

Helpful Ancient Hebrew Web-Site

2007-03-16T08:01:00.000-05:00

For those of you like me who need a user friendly, interactive, and most importantly, free online ancient Hebrew tutor, check out this web-site: link

I haven't looked at this site extensively but so far it seems really helpful. The notes and exercises are based on Page Kelley's, Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar. I have no idea how this text compares to other recent ancient Hebrew grammars, but as far as I'm concerned, anything has to be better than Weingreen:-)

Great News!

2007-03-13T13:10:00.000-05:00

After many months of waiting, it looks like I will be enrolling this Fall in the PhD program at the University of Aberdeen. This thankfully ends a rather long and wearisome time for my wife and me. This is also the initial fulfillment of a dream that I have had for quite some time. Praise the Lord, it also means I won't have to work as a security guard for the rest of my life :-)

Regarding my research topic, for now I will say that it will probably involve the "new creation" theme in Ephesians. More on this to come, I suppose.

Mark Taylor on the Structure of James (Part 3)

2007-03-06T10:51:00.000-05:00

Here's my third post on M. Taylor's, A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James. This post is basically a summary of the remainder of Taylor's analysis of the relationship between the major sections in James. Given the detailed nature of this part of Taylor's study, I've tried to trace his general argument and concentrate on highlighting how Taylor sees the author linking the various units of thought.

* Relationships Between Discourse Units in James

* Suggests that James 1:26–27 plays an important role in the development of James 2:1–13
i. the poor man is welcomed with inappropriate speech
ii. note the lack of mercy shown to the poor man
iii. the external standard of judgment described in James 2:1–13 exhibits the worldly influence warned against in James 1:27
* Suggests that James 2:14–26 is loosely connected to James 1:22–25 through the use of key-words such as “doer,” “work,” “faith,” and words in the tel- word group. Taylor also suggests that James 2:14–26 is closely related to James 2:1–13 through the use of various parallels (eg. “My brothers . . . faith” – 2:1, 14; kalws poieite, 2:8// kalws poieis, 2:19) (92)
* Suggests James 3:1–12 is linked to James 1 through their identical opening address (“my brothers”), key-words (eg. teleios, dunatos), and similar descriptions of the tongue (cf. 1:13–14, 26–27; 3:6, 8). Taylor also suggests James 3:1–12 is linked to James 2:1–13 and 2:14–26 in various ways, including their similar opening addresses, use of words in the tel– word group (cf. 2:22; 3:2); references to stumbling (cf. 2:10; 3:2)
* Regarding James 3:13–18, Taylor suggests that it is best viewed as a transitional section (as is James 4:11–12). He thus places a break in topic at 4:1 and describes this as the “emotional climax” of the entire composition (93)
* Regarding the relationship between James 4:1–10 and James 1, Taylor notes that the problems and vices described in 4:1–10 build upon “the author’s discussion of temptation, lust and the ultimate outcome of death described in 1.14–15 and the issue of proper vs. improper ‘asking’ raised in 1.5–7” (93–94). Taylor also notes that the term dipsuchoi occurs in 1:8 and 4:8. Finally, Taylor proposes that several key-words link James 4:1–10 with 3:1–18 (melesin – 3:6, 4:1; kakws/ kakos – 3:8, 4:3; meizon/ meizona – 3:1, 4:6)
* Taylor suggests that James 4:13–5:6 is linked to James 1 by means of their common warning regarding improper speech (1:13, 19, 26; 4:13–16). Taylor also suggests these texts are linked by the contrast between the promised “crown of life” in 1:12 and the author’s description of the precariousness of life in 4:14. Taylor admits that this is a tenuous connection but argues that “there may be intentional thematic ties with 1.9–11 and the emphasis upon the future destiny of the ‘rich’ who will pass away in their pursuits” (94–95). He also suggests these texts are linked by means of key-words (eg. hamartia – 1:15, 4:17; kauchasthw/ kauchasthe – 1:9, 4:16). Regarding the relationship between James 4:13–5:6, Taylor notes that both address conceited attitudes (esp. 4:6, 13–16). Taylor again notes that various key-words establish a link between James 4:13–5:6 and James 4:1–10 (kardias – 4:8, 5:5; phoneuw/ ephoneusate – 4:2, 5:6). Taylor also notes the presence of an inclusion at 4:6 and 5:6. Finally, he notes the presence of distant hook words at 4:9 and 5:1
i. palaipwrhsate / klausate (4:9)
ii. klausate / palaipwriais (5:1)
* Taylor suggests James 5:7–20 is linked to James 1 by means of the “endurance” motif (cf. 1:3, 4, 12; 5: 7, 11). He also notes the conceptual similarity between the “prayer of faith” in 5:15 and the “asking in faith” in 1:6. Taylor also proposes that “the concern for recapturing the brother who has wandered from the truth appropriately ends the letter and indicates what the author has been attempting to do for the readers throughout the composition” (96). He then suggests that James 5:19–20 and 1:16–21 are linked through such key-words as planaw, alhtheia, thanatos, and hamartia.

Biblical Exegesis in "The Book of Watchers"

2007-02-28T15:16:00.000-05:00

I got my review copy of Archie Wright's, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, from Faith & Mission (the academic journal for SEBTS) last week. I'm hoping that doing this review will 1) force me to become more familiar with 1 Enoch and its related secondary literature; 2) help me gain a better understanding of the cosmology that (possibly) underlies Ephesians.
I'm not certain how much I will comment on this book here, but I can foresee at least a few posts. Anyway, I found Wright's description of the relationship between 1 Enoch 1-36 ("The Book of Watchers") and Genesis 6:1-4 very stimulating, so here it is:

"Genesis 6.1-4 tells the story of the bene elohim and their encounter with the daughters of humanity which resulted in the birth of the gibborim. The passage is positioned in the biblical narrative as a prelude to the judgment of the Flood. However, on the surface nothing in the biblical text of Genesis 6.1-4 demands that the reader understand those verses in a negative light, that is, as depicting some action or event that is considered inappropriate or dubious. It is necessary to evaluate the traditions (e.g., the negative aspects of the 'angels of the nations') that underlie Genesis 6.1-4 in order to assess properly why the text is commendable as the starting point of the Watcher tradition. This is to say, the Watcher tradition represents a type of biblical synthesis and exposition; it is the 'superimposition' of negative traditions onto the relatively neutral position of Genesis 6.1-4" (6).

I'm not sure how original Wright's idea is (as previously noted, I'm quite unfamiliar with work related to 1 Enoch). But, I do find it a helpful description of what seems to be going on in 1 Enoch 1-36. Also, two things in this statement are particularly interesting to me: 1) his suggestion that the "angel of the nations" tradition lies behind Gen 6:1-4 and hence 1 Enoch 1-36; 2) his suggestion that 1 Enoch 1-36 is a "'superimposition' of negative traditions" on the biblical text.

Mark Taylor on the Structure of James (Part 2)

2007-02-27T11:10:00.000-05:00

Here's my second post on M. Taylor's, A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James. As one reads through this book, the final two chapters seem particularly weighty and detailed. I'll therefore split these chapters up into several posts. The following is my summary of the first major portion of Taylor's discussion on the relationship between the various major sections in James.

Chapter 5 – Relationship Between Discourse Units in James
· Taylor seeks to explain how individual units with James “work together to present a unified message” (72)
· Notes that unity is achieved in James through
1. the use of imperatives;
2. use of catchwords;
3. references to God and the community;
4. the use of the tel- word group (allows for the development of the “perfection” theme);
5. the development of ‘double-minded’/ ‘world’ theme (this is the antithesis of the "perfection" theme);
6. the "law" theme;
7. the "salvation"/ "judgment" theme;
8. the "proper speech" theme;
· Suggests the author uses the following transition devices:
1) ‘hook words’ ("a common word at the end of one section and at the beginning of the next thus yielding a transition between the two," p. 77);
2) ‘hooked key words’ ("a transition being effected by (1) a characteristic term used in teh second unit and introduced in conclusion of the first, (2) a characteristic term in the first unit used in the introduction of the next, or (3) a combination of the two, p. 78)
3) ‘distant hook words’ ("key lexical items that appear to have some transitional/linking function but are separated by one or more intervening units," p. 80)
4) parallel introductions (Taylor here notes several parallels between the introductory statements of 1:2–25 and 2:1–13/ Taylor also suggests that several successive passages begin in similar ways- eg. 3:13; 4:1)
5) ‘overlapping constituents’ (when a passage both serves as the conclusion of a unit and the introduction of another unit) /Taylor here primarily identifies James 1:12, which he argues concludes 1:1–11 and introduces 1:13–25
6) proverbial statements (Taylor suggests that these statement primarily function as “transitional/summary statements linking larger units”) (83)

Taylor then devotes careful attention to James 1:12, 1:26–27; 2:12–13; 3:13–18; 4:11–12; 5:9; 5:12, which he argues are significant transitional/summary statements of proverbial character. He concludes, “In summary, 1.12, an overlapping transition, unites the opening chapter around the theme of the ‘blessed’ person who endures. The chapter closes with 1.26–27, a unit that brings the opening to an appropriate conclusion and anticipates the major emphases of the rest of the letter. James 2.12–13 summarizes the lead essay of the body proper (2.1–11), anticipates thematically the following two major units (2.14–26, 3.1–12), and stands in a unique relationship to 4.11–12. The pericope on wisdom, 3.13–18, significantly relates to what precedes and follows and stands as a major turning point in the letter. The remaining transition passages (4.11–12, 5.9, 5.12) have common structures and reinforce to the reader the key themes of speech and judgment. Collectively, these dynamics argue for a well-structured, intentionally arranged discourse” (90)

Mark Taylor on the Structure of James (Part 1)

2007-02-15T13:45:00.000-05:00

I came across this very interesting book on the structure of James last week: A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James, by Mark Taylor. Anyone who has done even the slightest amount of research on this letter knows the difficulty involved in following James' train of thought. Here's a brief summary of the contents of chapters 1-4.

Chapter 1 - Approaches to the Structure of James

Concludes that most scholars are beginning to see James as a literary whole

Notes the overthrow of Dibelius’ suggestion that James is a collection of somewhat random pericopes

Suggests unity achieved through the use of various devices such as catchwords, thematic expansions, and recapitulation

Notes that most scholars argue that James 1 presents the “key” to the structure of the entire letter

Observes that while there is a general consensus that James is a literary whole, there is little agreement regarding how individual units function within the larger discourse

Chapter 2- Methodology

Begins with a discussion of text-linguistics and its application to New Testament studies

Explains the particular approach, cohesion shift analysis - developed by G. Guthrie - he employs in this analysis

Cohesion Shift Analysis essentially refers to the attempt to determine a composition’s structure by carefully analyzing various linguistic phenomena (eg. genre, verbal aspect, person reference) in order to observe specific “breaks in the text” (42-43)

Chapter 3 - Cohesion Shift Analysis

Seeks to determine where “cohesion shifts” (i.e., “breaks in the text”) occur in James with a view to better understanding its structure

Concludes that important cohesion shifts occur at James 1:9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21; 2:1, 5b, 14, 21, 25; 3:1, 13; 4:1, 7, 11, 13; 5:1, 6, 12 , 16, 19

Also notes that “significant shifts occur before and after 1.12, 1.16, 4.11-12, 5.6 and 5.12 thus indicating their independent character in that they are " ‘isolated’ from the surrounding context, at least as far as the cohesion dynamics are concerned” (58)

Chapter 4 - The Use of Inclusio in James

Seeks to determine how the presence of inclusions helps reveal the letter’s structure

Helpfully notes (following Guthrie) that repetition of words, phrases, etc. does not necessarily indicate the presence of an inclusio. The presence of repetition may thus serve other functions.

Argues for the presence of inclusions at the following points of the letter:
James 1:2-4// 1:12 (does see 1:12 as creating a “bridge” into the next section)
James 1:12// 1:25 (also suggest 1:25 is a summary statement)
James 1:16// 1:19
James 1:13//1 :21 [Taylor concludes his discussion of inclusions in James 1 by suggesting, “a sustained argument is developed relating to the character of God, the demands of his word and his actions upon believers” (64)]
James 2:1// 2:9
James 2:12-13// 4:11-12 [Taylor suggests this is “perhaps the most important, yet overlooked, uses of inclusio by the author of James” (64)]
James 2:14-16// 2:26
James 2:14// 2: 6-17
James 2:20// 2:26
James 3:1// 3:12
James 4:1// 4:3
James 4:7// 5:6
James 5:7-11

Taylor actually argues for the presence of several inclusions in James 5:7-11, suggesting that this is “a highly structured, carefully balanced section” (68)

Taylor’s representation of the structure of James 5:7-11:

A “Grand Inclusio” at James 1:25 and 5:7-20
o Here Taylor follows P. Davids, W. Wuellner, and T Penner in arguing for the presence of “several significant connections between 1.2-25 and 5.7-20” (69)
o Taylor states, “Thematically, both the opening [1:2-25] and the closing [5:7-20] convey an eschatological outlook. The eschatological reversal of 1.9-11, the crown of life in 1.12, and the promise of future blessing to the one who obeys in 1.25 correspond to the promised return of the Lord in 5.7-11. Likewise, the telos kuriou, with reference to the testing of Job in 5.11, encourages further reflection on the eschatological outcome of trials promised in 1.2-4 (cf. the use of teleios) (70)

MORE TO COME SOON.

Structure of Ephesians 2:11-22

2007-02-14T11:41:00.000-05:00

Again, see my post on 8/16/06 for an explanation of the notation used in this analysis.

Therefore remember that at one time you → INTRO (11a)
Gentiles in the flesh → ORIENTER 11a (11b)
called "the uncircumcision" → ORIENTER 11a (11c)
by what is called the circumcision → ELABORATION 11c (11d)
which is made in the flesh by hands → ELABORATION/ QUALIFIER 11d (11e)
remember that you were at that time → INTRO cont. 11a (12a)
separated from Christ → CONTENT 11a/12a (12b)
alienated from the commonwealth of Israel → CONTENT 11a/12a (12c)
and strangers to the covenants of promise → CONTENT 11a/12a (12d)
having no hope → CONTENT 11a/12a (12e)
and without God in the world → CONTENT 11a/12a (12f)
But now in Christ Jesus → ORIENTER 11a-12f (13a)
you who once were far off have been brought near → MAIN IDEA (13b)
by the blood of Christ → MEANS 13b (13c)
For he himself is our peace → EXPLANATION 11a–13b (14a)
who has made us both one → RESULT 14a (14b)
and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility → RESULT 14a (14c)
by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances → MEANS 14c (15a)
that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two → PURPOSE 14a-15a (15b)
so making peace → RESULT 15b (15c)
and might reconcile us both to God in one body → PURPOSE 14a-15a (16a)
through the cross → MEANS 16a (16b)
thereby killing the hostility → RESULT 16ab (16c)
And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near → ELABORATION 13b (17a)
For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father → GROUNDS 17a (18a)
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens → RESULT 13a-18a (19a)
but you are fellow citizens with the saints → RESULT 13a-18a (19b)
and members of the household of God → RESULT 13a-18a (19c)
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets → REASON 19abc (20a)
Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone → QUALIFICATION 20a (20b)
in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord → ELABORATION 20b (21a)
In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit → CLARIFICATION 21a (22a)

Ben Witherington on President Ford

2007-01-02T12:25:00.000-05:00

HERE are some timely reflections from Dr Witherington's blog about President Ford. Apparently Dr Witherington went to Gordon-Conwell with President Ford's son, Mike. Definitely worth a read!

Ancient Magic and Ephesians

2006-12-29T08:58:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting text from 1 Enoch that helps reveal the attitude towards magical rites in the ancient world:

"And they will worship stones, and others will make graven images of gold and silver and wood and clay, and others willl worship impure spirits and demons and all kinds of superstitions not according to knowledge, notwithstanding no manner of help will be found in them" (1 Enoch 99:7)

The final phrase of this sentence seems to convey one of primary motives behind this idolatorous and demonic worship - acquiring help in various aspects of life. What does all this have to do with Ephesians? Well, in a very important monograph (Ephesians: Power and Magic), Clinton Arnold argues that one of the primary reasons Paul wrote Ephesians was to encourage Christians living in a culture consumed my magical practices and the supernatural (cf. Acts 19). Arnold suggests that Paul highlights Christ's supremacy over cosmic evil (cf. 1:20-22) in this letter in order to remind Christians in Asia Minor that they need not engage in magical rites as a means of placating demonic forces. Christ's defeat of the "powers" is a major theme in this letter and given the central role of the Artemis cult in the religious climate of Ephesus, a connection between the writing of this letter and pagan magic seems quite plausible. This suggestion would also account for the general tone of the letter. Still, I can't help but think that Paul's "sights" are ultimately set on broader (but closely related) concerns.

Brief Reflections on ETS

2006-11-28T09:09:00.000-05:00

Since I left DC about a week and a half ago, it's probably a good idea for me to put a few thoughts together before I completely forget about my experience at ETS. First, it was truly wonderful to get to spend time with friends and meet new people. Coming from a first-class introvert who would rather spend time reading than talking, this is no paltry statement. It has been over a year since I finished the coursework for my ThM and since then I have largely been out of an academic environment. While this has allowed me to get back into the "real world" (whatever that means!), I have missed the opportunity to be around fellow nerds. Much of my time was spent with Alan Bandy (check out his blog here) since we stayed with his in-laws in Maryland and it was great to catch up with him and engage on a number of issues. He certainly is a gentleman and a scholar! I also got the opportunity to meet several bloggers, including Michael Bird, Michael Pahl, Joel Willitts, James Hamilton, and Bryan Lee.
As far as papers go, there were unfortunately a few disappointments. Much of that had nothing to do with the papers themselves and more to do with certain expectations/hopes I had formed in my mind. In truth, I think this is a somewhat natural phenomena as on so much is revealed by a paper title. Nonetheless, I was able to attend several interesting papers, which I will probably comment on at a later date. Unfortunately, there were also several papers that I hoped to hear but was unable to for various reasons. Part of the problem was that Alan and I averaged about five hours sleep a night! That's okay the first couple of days, but once Friday came around, I was not too keen on doing "the paper thing."
As far as books go, they simply didn't! While there were a ton of books that I wanted, I was determined to stick to essentials for future research. I am already going to be in a bind when it comes to deciding which books to take with us if we get to spend a few years studying in Scotland. I can already see myself suffering from separation anxiety as I part with the majority of my library and there is simply no need to make that a more trying time by buying an extensive amount of books. I was really hoping to find more stuff on Ephesians, but there unfortunately was nothing really there (maybe there was more at SBL). This may reflect the lack of academic interest in that amazing epistle, which I suppose is to my advantage. Nonetheless, I did pick up the following volumes, most of which should be really helpful for my future research:

1 Enoch, R. Charles
Powers of Darkness: Principalities & Powers in Paul's Letters, C. Arnold
Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies, C. Evans
The Theology of Paul the Apostle, J. Dunn
Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, U. Schnelle
An Introduction to Early Judaism, J. Vanderkam

Interesting ETS Papers

2006-11-10T10:54:00.000-05:00

I do apologize (again) for the absence. Things have been crazy as my wife and I sell our house. I've also taken a break from my work on Ephesians and have tried to focus attention on a few other areas of interest (primarily the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 Enoch, and discourse analysis). Anyway, I'll try to get back to Ephesians again soon.

Here are a few ETS papers that look particularly interesting to me:

1) "Powers, Personification and the Paradox of Evil in Wisdom and Romans" (J. Dodson)
2) "Isaiah's Leviathan in His Near Eastern Context" (W. Barker)
3) "The Church Militant and Her Warfare: We are not another Interest Group" (J. Hamilton)
4) "Paul, Artemis, and Idolatry in Ephesians" (C. Arnold)
5) "'As it was in the Days of Noah': Flood Typology, the Use of the Old Testament and Eschatological Expectation in 1 Enoch and the New Testament" (D. Street)
6)"The Polemical Nature of the Danielic Mystery and Paul's Use of It in 1 Cor 1-2" (B. Gladd)
7) "Transforming the Body: Salvation as Restoration to the Proper Use of the Body in Romans" (T. Gombis)
8) "The Church as 'One New Man': Ecclesiology and Anthropology in Ephesians" (S. Aaron Son)
9) "The Use (or Abuse) of Power in High Places: Paul's Account of Gift-Giving in Eph 4:8 and Psa 68" (W. Wilder)
10) "Benefaction, Body Building, and Battle: A Political Theory for the Church in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians" (F. Long)
11) "Meeting the New Perspective Half-Way: Jew Gentile Relationships and Justification by Faith in Paul" (M. Bird)

I'm really pleased to see a number of papers on Ephesians. I'm also excited about the papers on Romans, as they could line up really well with my future research on Ephesians (btw, some see numerous parallels between Romans and Ephesians). Hopefully some of these papers will also provide for some interesting discussion on this blog.

Structure of Ephesians 2:1-10 (Part 2)

2006-10-16T11:06:00.000-05:00

Here's my preliminary analysis of Ephesians 2:1-10. Again, see my post on 8/16/06 for an explanation of the notation used in this analysis. Enjoy!

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins → INTRO (1a)
in which you once walked → ELABORATION 1a (2a)
following the course of this world → MANNER 2a (2b)
following the prince of the power of the air → MANNER 2a (2c)
the spirit that is now at work → ELABORATION 2c (2d)
in the sons of disobedience → SPHERE 2d (2e)
among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh → ELABORATION 2e (3a)
carrying out the desires of the body and the mind → MANNER 3a (3b)
and were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind → ELABORATION 2e (3c)
But God, being rich in mercy → ORIENTER 1a–3c (4a)
because of the great love with which he loved us → REASON 5b, 6a, 6b (4b)
even when we were dead in our trespasses → CONCESSIVE 4b (5a)
made us alive together with Christ → MAIN IDEA (5b)
by grace you have been saved → PARENTHETICAL STATEMENT 5b (5c)
and raised us up with him → MAIN IDEA (6a)
and seated us with him → MAIN IDEA (6b)
in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus → SPHERE 5b, 6a, 6b (6c)
so that in the coming ages he might show → PURPOSE 5b, 6abc (7a)
the immeasurable riches of his grace → CONTENT 7a (7b)
in kindness → MANNER 7b (7c)
toward us in Christ Jesus → SPHERE 7c (7d)
For by grace you have been saved through faith → ELABORATION 4a–7d (8a)
And this is not your own doing → ELABORATION 8a (8b)
it is the gift of God → ELABORATION 8b (8c)
not a result of works → ELABORATION 8c (9a)
so that no one may boast → REASON 8bcd (9b)
For we are his workmanship → GROUNDS 8–9 (10a)
created in Christ Jesus for good works → PURPOSE 10a (10b)
which God prepared beforehand → ELABORATION 10b (10c)
that we should walk in them → PURPOSE 10c (10d)

The Structure of Ephesians 2:1-10 (Part 1)

2006-10-06T11:54:00.000-05:00

Ephesians 2:1-4 = a description of the believer's sinful past
v.1-2a = formerly characterized by a sinful life-style
v. 2b-3 = formerly influenced by evil cosmic forces and our sinful nature
Ephesians 2:5-10 = a description of the Divine initiative that remedied our sinful state
v. 4-5a = the basis of the Divine initiative
v. 5b-7 = the effects of the Divine initiative (a three-fold description of our "union with Christ")
v. 8-10 = a summary of the Gospel that achieves our "union with Christ"
v. 8-9 = how God effects our salvation
v. 10 = the purpose of our salvation

A more detailed analysis to come!

Francis Watson on Romans 1:17 & Habakkuk 2:4

2006-09-14T12:00:00.000-05:00

About a month ago, I began working through (something of an understatement!) F. Watson's Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. Thus far, I've thoroughly enjoyed it. While I've benefited greatly from pretty much everything I've read thus far, Watson's treatment of Habakkuk 2:4 and its relationship to Paul's citation of this text in Romans 1:17 has been particularly interesting.

Here are some of Watson's primary conclusions:

"Whether they think in terms of 'faithfulness' or of 'faith', the prophet and the apostle are at one in their assumption that emunah or pistis refers to the human response to the divine promise of definitive, eschatological saving action. The apostle's message is "gospel", in which human speech is the bearer of "the power of God unto salvation" to those in whom it evokes the response of faith (cf. Rom.1.16). The prophet likewise seeks to evoke a response in which the entire life of his reader is reoriented towards the future divine saving action of which he writes. His book begins with a despairing question about salvation: "YHWH, how long . . . shall I cry to you, 'Violence!', and you will not save?" (Hab.1.3) . . . From beginning to end, the book of Habakkuk is concerned with salvation . . . And it is concerned only with salvation . . . It is not concerned, for example, to address the problem of unrighteous conduct among the covenant people.
When Paul cites his proof-text in the form, "The one who is righteous by faith shall live", he shares with his scriptural source the conviction that all human life is to be lived in the light of God's final, comprehensive act of salvation. For Paul, the prophetic "by faith" entails the corollary, "not by works of law"; that, and not an explicit christological refernce, is the point he seeks to establish on the basis of Habakkuk 2.4, in order to bear witness to the radical priority of divine saving action even over the human action enjoined in the law itself (162-63)."

A chapter truly worth a careful read!

Detailed Structure of Ephesians 1:15-23

2006-09-12T10:20:00.000-05:00

Here's my stab at a detailed analysis of Ephesians 1:15-23. For an explanation of the notation used here, see my post dated 8/16/2006.

For this reason → ORIENTER 1:3–14 (1:15a)
because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus → REASON 1:15a (1:15b)
and because I have heard of your love toward all the saints → REASON 1:15a (1:15c)
I do not cease to give thanks for you → RESULT 1:15bc (1:16a)
when remembering you in my prayers → TEMPORAL QUALIFIER 1:16a (1:16b)
that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ → CONTENT 1:16b (1:17a)
the Father of glory → ELABORATION 1:17a (1:17b)
may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation → CONTENT 1:16b (1:17c)
in the knowledge of him → SPHERE 1:17c (1:17d)
having the eyes of your hearts enlightened → RESULT 1:17cd (1:18a)
that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you → PURPOSE/RESULT 1:17cd (1:18b)
what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints → PURPOSE/RESULT 1:17cd (1:18c)
and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe → PURPOSE/RESULT 1:17cd (1:19a)
according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ → ASSOCIATION 1:19a (1:19b)
when he raised him from the dead → TEMPORAL QUALIFIER 1:19b (1:20a)
and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places → TEMPORAL QUALIFIER 1:19b (1:20b)
far above all rule and authority and power and dominion → ELABORATION/RESULT 1:19–20 (1:21a)
and above every name that is named → SUMMARY 1:20b–1:21a (1:21b)
not only in this age but also in the one to come → TEMPORAL QUALIFIER 1:21ab (1:21c)
And he put all things under his feet → SUMMARY 1:19b–1:21c (1:22a)
and gave him as head over all things to the church → SUMMARY 1:19b–1:21c (1:22b)
which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all → ELABORATION 1:22b (1:23)

The Structure of Ephesians 1:15-23

2006-08-31T09:03:00.000-05:00

The following is a broad analysis of the structure of Ephesians 1:15-23:

Eph 1:15-23 = A Prayer of thanksgiving, intercession, and praise
Eph 1:15 = Reasons for Paul's prayer
Eph 1:16 = Paul's response
Eph 1:17-23 = Content of Paul's prayer (growth in maturity & understanding of Christ's work)
v. 17-18a = Request for strengthening by the Spirit (growth in practical wisdom & understanding)
v. 18b-19a = Description of the resulting revelatory work of the Spirit
v. 19b-23 = Elaboration of God's power (cf. 1:19a)
v. 21-23 = Elaboration of Christ's supremacy over good and evil
v. 23 = Summary statement describing Christ's supremacy

Detailed Diagram of Ephesians 1:3-14

2006-08-16T17:05:00.000-05:00

Here is a more detailed diagram of Ephesians 1:3-14. In general, my aim is to show how the various statements in this passage are related to one another. The translation I will be using in these diagrams is the ESV. Let me also explain how to "read" these diagrams. Next to each phrase is a semantic category that describes how a given phrase functions in the passage (eg. "grounds," "means" etc.). Following the semantic category is a number and letter that identifies which phrase in the passage the phrase in question is linked to. Following this is another number and letter in brackets that identifies the particular phrase in view.
For example, Eph 1:5 consists of two primary phrases (at least in my analysis). These are:
i) In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, → SUPPORT 1:3b (1:5a); ii)according to the purpose of his will, → REASON 1:5a (1:5b).
The word "SUPPORT" here would indicate that this phrase functions as "supporting evidence" for one of Paul's assertions. The number/letter combination "1:3b" indicates that this phrase is providing "supporting evidence" for the phrase identified in the diagram as 1:3b. The numer/letter combination in brackets identifies this particular phrase as (1:5a). This would indicate that this phrase is found in Eph 1:5 and is the first phrase in this verse.
I do hope that this notation system isn't as difficult to interpret as some of Paul's statements in this passage:-) Finally, blogspot unfortunately prevents me from showing how the phrases are subordinated to one another.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, → INTRO (1:3a)
who has blessed us in Christ → MAIN IDEA/ELABORATION/REASON 1:3a (1:3b)
with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places → CONTENT 1:3b (1:3c)
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, → SUPPORT 1:3b (1:4a)
that we should be holy and blameless before him. → PURPOSE 1:4a 1:(4b)
5 In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, → SUPPORT 1:3b (1:5a)
according to the purpose of his will, → REASON 1:5a (1:5b)
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, → PURPOSE 1:5a (1:6a)
with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. → ELABORATION 1:6a (1:6b)
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, → SUPPORT 1:3b (1:7a)
the forgiveness of our trespasses, → ELABORATION 1:7a (1:7b)
according to the riches of his grace, → GROUNDS 1:7ab (1:7c)
8 which he lavished upon us, → ELABORATION 1:7c (1:8a)
in all wisdom and insight → ELABORATION 1:8a (1:8b)
9 making known1 to us the mystery of his will, → MEANS 1:8a (1:9a)
according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ → GROUNDS 1:9a (1:9b)
10as a plan for the fullness of time → PURPOSE 1:9b (1:10a)
to unite all things in him, → EXPLANATION 1:9a/1:10a (1:10b)
things in heaven → CONTENT 1:10b (1:10c)
and things on earth. → CONTENT 1:10b (1:10d)
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, → SUPPORT 1:3b (1:11a)
having been predestined → MEANS 1:11a (1:11b)
according to the purpose of him → REASON 1:11b (1:11c)
who works all things according to the counsel of his will → ELABORATION 1:11c (1:11d)
12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ → ELABORATION 1:11a (1:12a)
might be to the praise of his glory. → PURPOSE 1:11a (1:12b)
13 In him you also, → INTRO CLAUSE (1:13a)
when you heard the word of truth → TEMPORAL CLARIFICATION 1:13e (1:13b)
the gospel of your salvation → CONTENT 1:13b (1:13c)
and believed in him, → TEMPORAL CLARIFICATION 1:13e (113d)
were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit → SUPPORT 1:3b (1:13e)
14 who is the guarantee1 of our inheritance → ELABORATION 1:13e (1:14a)
until we acquire possession of it,2 → TEMPORAL CLARIFICATION 1:14a (1:14b)
to the praise of his glory → PURPOSE/RESULT 1:13e/1:14a (1:14c)

The structure of Ephesians 1:3-14

2006-08-08T13:13:00.000-05:00

First of all, as anyone who has seriously studied this passage knows, it is very difficult to determine how the various thoughts in this lengthy sentence are connected. The following thus merely represents a tentative analysis of the broad contours of this beautiful passage.

Eph 1:3-14 = The Christian Community's Spiritual Blessings in Christ
Eph 1:3 = Introductory blessing to God
Eph 1:4-14 = An Explanation of how God has blessed us in Christ
v. 4 = Blessing #1 (election in Christ)
v. 5-6 = Blessing #2 (adoption in Christ)
v. 7-10 = Blessing #3 (redemption in Christ)
v. 11-12 = Blessing #4 (our inheritance in Christ)
v. 13-14 = Blessing #5 (our sealing by the Spirit)

Anyone who attempts to delineate the structure of this passage is faced with two particularly pressing problems: 1) the phrase "in love" in v. 4; 2) the significance of the particple gnwrisas ("making known") in v. 9. Regarding the former problem, the issue is whether to connect the clause with the phrase "holy and blameless before him" or withthe verb "he predestined us" in v. 5. At this point, I tend to connect it with the verb "he predestined us." First, Paul seems to begin every major section of this passage with the preposition "in." Second, taking the phrase with Paul's statements in v.5 would create a rather nice parallel with Eph 2:4. Third (and probably most important), the phrase "in love he predestined us" is much more natural than "holy and blameless before him in love" (commentators who adopt this reading seem divided on what Paul might be conveying with this statement).
Regarding the latter problem, the issue is whether to take the participle "making known" in v. 9 with the grace God lavishes in v. 7-8 or to see Paul starting a new section in the passage. At this point, I tend to favor the first option. However, there are (in my opinion), convincing reasons for adopting the latter option. First, Paul also seems to begin a new section with a participle (proorisas) in v. 5. Second, the noun "mystery" plays a major role in the theology of this letter. It then becomes rather natural to see the revelation of this mystery to the believer as one of the spiritual blessings Paul is describing in this passage. That said, every other major section in this passage begins with the phrase "in him." Perhaps most damaging to the view that takes v. 9-10 as a new major section is the fact that Paul is describing heavenly realities (v. 3). It is true that Ephesians establishes a close link between earthly and heavenly realities. However, it is difficult to see how understanding the "mystery of Christ" (Paul probably equates the "mystery" of 1:9 with the "mystery of Christ" in Eph 3:4) could be considered a spiritual blessing for the believer.

Look out for a more detailed analysis of the structure of this passage, hopefully in the coming days:-)

New series on the structure of Ephesians

2006-08-08T13:03:00.000-05:00

Okay, I haven't posted in TWO months! Even for me, that is a very extended absence. Most of my time has been spent preparing lessons for a discipleship class on Ephesians at my church (notes, diagramming passages, Powerpoint presentations), putting together my research proposal for PhD applications, and working on a couple of book-reviews. It has been a very busy time and I've simply felt the need to lighten my load a little.

Anyway, having gone through the first four and a half chapters of Ephesians (I do plan on going through the whole book), I'm going to begin posting on the structure of Ephesians. I hope these posts will be profitable for all who read them and helpful for me as I interact with others in the blogosphere.

NTW, Bird, and "The New Perspective" (Part 2)

2006-06-09T18:09:00.000-05:00

Regarding the necessity of a mediating position between the "New Perspective" and traditional readings of Paul, Wright also makes the following observation:

"Israel too is in Adam: the people who bear the solution are themselves part of the problem, and the good and holy Torah . . . simply intensifies the problem, partly by pointing at sin within Israel, and partly, at a second level, by apparently encouraging Israel to make it an idol, to use it as a way of establishing an inalienable status of national privilege . . . This move shows, I believe, the folly of dividing up readings of Paul into the false either/or of those on the one hand which highlight the problem of sin and the question of forgiveness and those on the other which highlight the problem of Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles within God's people. This is where the so-called 'new perspective' has made one of its necessary points - that every time Paul discusses justification he seems simultaneously to be talking about Gentile inclusion - but has not, usually, shown how this integrates with the traditional view that he is talking about how sinners are put right with God" (Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 36: italics mine).

Wright's observation regarding the link between justification and Gentile inclusion certainly seems valid for Romans and Galations. It also seems relevant for Ephesians 2:1-22.

NTW, Bird, and "The New Perspective" (Part 1)

2006-06-06T14:35:00.000-05:00

Dr. Michael Bird has recently announced another paper he will be presenting at ETS (link). Apparently this latest contribution from the "good Doctor" will attempt to establish some common ground with the "New Perspective" on Paul.

At this moment, I am on vacation with my wife visiting my family in the Cayman Islands. However, since this post is quite similar to a post I have been planning on putting together-and I can never resist referencing Dr. Bird's blog-I've decided to go ahead and post it now. Besides, I'm long overdue for an addition to my meager blog. Anyway, enough introduction!

While it is only the second chapter I have read in his work, "Paul: In Fresh Perspective," I'm not sure how Wright can surpass his discussion of creation and covenant in Paul. This chapter no doubt builds upon his earlier "The Climax of the Covenant," and really makes me want to finally dig through that important work.
One of the most helpful points in this chapter for me was Wright's discussion of the relationship between creation, covenant, and the law.
Here are Wright's three primary theses:
1) the covenant was intended as "the means of dealing with evil within the good creation"
2) "The family of Abraham, who themselves share in the evil, as well as in the image-bearing vocation, of the rest of humanity, treated their vocation to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege"
3) "When God fulfils the covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit, thereby revealing his faithful covenant justice and his ultimate purpose of new creation, this has the effect both of fulfilling the original covenant purpose (thus dealing with sin and procuring forgiveness) and of enabling Abraham's family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it was always intended to be" (36-37)

Wright concludes, "If there is one major result of this chapter in terms of current debates, it is that the 'new perspective' on the one hand, and its critics on the other, both need to come to terms with the integrated vision of human sin and redemption and Israel's fall and restoration which characterizes Paul through and through, precisely because his controlling categories are creation and covenant."

Again, this work proves itself (at least in my mind) to be a necessary read.

NTW and the Authorship of Ephesians

2006-05-19T15:44:00.000-05:00

Here is another choice "morsel" from Wright's "Paul: In Fresh Perspective."

"[I]t may be high time to enquire about some of the supposed 'fixed points' of scholarship which, growing as they did out of a very different era to our own, may perhaps have been allowed to remain more by fashion (and the fear of being thought unscholarly if one challenges such fashion) than by solid argument. Take, for example, the widespread assumption still common in many quarters that not only Ephesians but also Colossians are not written by Paul himself, even if they may contain some material that goes back to him. There are, of course, many interesting points to be made on this subject. But our suspicions ought to be aroused by the fact that such consensus as there has ever beeon on the subject came from the time when the all-dominant power in New Testament scholarship lay with a particular kind of German existentialist-Lutheranism for whom any ecclesiology other than a purely functional one, any view of Jesus Christ other than a fairly low Christology, any view of creation other than a Barthian 'Nein', was deeply suspect. The false/either or, as I would see it, of justification or the church, of salvation or creation, hovered as a brooding presence over the smaller arguments (which are in any case always unconvincing, given the very small textual base) from style. The extremely marked stylistic difference between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians is far greater than that between, say, Romans and Ephesians, but nobody supposes for that reason that one of them is not by Paul. In particular, the assumption that a high Christology must mean later, and non-Pauline, authorship has been brought to the material, not discovered within it. And the argument recently advanced (in North America particularly) that Ephesians and Colossians are secondary because they move away from confrontation with the Empire to colloboration with it is frankly absurd" (18-19).

I certainly have not read everything written on the authorship of Ephesians. However, I do feel confident enough to suggest that the consensus view (non-Pauline authorship) does not seem to have the strong support that some would imagine. By the way, given my interest in "anti-Imperial rhetoric" in Ephesians, I certainly appreciate Wright's final sentence [for a helpful analysis of the relationship between the Ephesians household-code and traditional Graeco-Roman thought, see T. Gombis, "A Radically New Humanity: The Function of the Haustaufel in Ephesians," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005): 317-30].

Max Turner on Ephesians 1:10b

2006-05-09T15:50:00.000-05:00

Ephesians 1:3-14 contains a number of "thorny" interpretative issues. A particularly significant problem is the meaning and translation of the infinitive anakephalaiwsasthai in 1:10b. Given that this phrase expresses a central part of the author's (Paul?) argument (scholars suggest 1:9-10 is the focal point of the passage), interpretative precision on this issue is critical to understanding this passage. Here is Max Turner's ("Mission and Meaning in Terms of 'Unity' in Ephesians" in Mission and Meaning: Essays Presented to Peter Cotterell) assessment:

"The translation of the verb anakephalaioo as "to bring back into unity" requires some brief justification. While the NIV follows an exegetical tradition that takes the verb to mean 'bring under one head', this should probably be rejected because it would suggest (incorrectly) that the verb derives from the noun kephale ('head') rather than from kephalaion ('main point', 'summary'). Etymology would thus rather support the sense 'to sum up' (as in Rom. 13:9) or possibly 'to recapitulate' (if weight is given to the prefix) . . . the phrase 'all things . . . the things in the heavens and the things on earth in him' strongly evokes the centre-piece hymnic passage of the sister letter, Colossians (1:15-20). The latter asserts that all things 'in the heavens and on the earth' were initially created in Christ (1:16), and that through the death and resurrection-exaltation of Christ 'all things' 'whether on earth or in the heavens' would eventually once more become reconciled (i.e. brought back from warring alienation into peaceful unity under God). The Colossians parallel thus suggests that the 'summing up' of all things in Christ envisaged in Ephesians 1:10 is God's bringing of them back into harmonious unity in and through Christ" (139-140).

Turner's essay also has some helpful comments on the relationship between Eph 1-3 and 4-6. Especially interesting is his discussion of the author's "new creation" theology, a motif that is implicit in Eph 1:10 and finds expression throughout the letter (cf. 2:1-10; 4:17-24).

"Right" on Narrative Criticism in the Pauline Epistles

2006-04-20T08:07:00.000-05:00

Lately I have been enjoying working through N. T. Wright's "Paul: in Fresh Perspective." I personally think this book would serve as a very helpful College-level introduction to Paul's writings. One of the most interesting sections in his introductory chapter is his discussion of the presence of "stories" in Paul's letters.
Here are a few choice quotes:

"Once the narrative genie has been let out of the bottle, not least in a world with its eyes newly opened by contemporary literary study, you can't get it back in; and now all kinds of aspects of Paul are being tested for implicit and explicit storylines. Despite the wishes and efforts of some, this cannot be dismissed as the superimposition on Paul of a line ideas or as a mere post-liberal fad. It certainly does not reduce Paul's thought, as some have darkly hinted, to a world of 'story' over against 'doctrine' on the one hand or real life on the other. To take an obvious example, Jewish literature from the Bible to the present day is soaked in certain controlling stories, such as those of Abraham, of the Exodus, and of exile and return, so that a small allusion to one of these within a Jewish source is usually a safe indication that we should understand the whole narrative to be at least hovering in the background. When we find allusions to the same stories in Paul we are not merely invited but obliged to follow them up and lay bare the narrative world he would have take for granted."

"Understanding how stories worked in the ancient world, and how a small allusion could and did summon up an entire implicit narrative, including narratives within which speaker and hearer believed themselves to be living, is a vital tool. I have in mind her the remarkable new book on Nero by the Princeton professor Edward Champlin, in which he demonstrates in great detail . . . the way in which the rich and varied mythologies of ancient Greece and Rome functioned in the minds and imaginations of ordindary people"

"The great stories of Abraham, of Exodus, of David . . . and of exile and restoration . . . create not merely a rich narrative backcloth from which motifs can be drawn at will to produce a resonant typology but also . . . a single narrative line, containing typological recapitulations but not reducible to them, in which Paul believed that he and his contemporaries were living"

"Their [Paul and other ancient writers] narratives could and did function typologically, that is, by providing a pattern which could be laid as a template across incidents and stories from another period without any historical continuity to link the two together. But the main function of their stories was to remind them of earlier and (they hoped) characteristic moments within the single, larger story which stretched from the creation of the world and the call of Abraham right forwards to their own day, and (they hoped) into the future"

"History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel" Again:-(

2006-04-06T18:28:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, I realized that there is now a THIRD edition of J. L. Martyn's "History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel" (it is part of "The New Testament Library" series). Undoubtedly, this work has been enormously influential in Johannine studies. At the same time, however, this work presents a reconstruction of the historical setting that surrounds John's composition that has been scathingly critiqued. Thankfully, there seems to be a movement in scholarly circles away from this fanciful theory (See A. Kostenberger, "The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel," Trinity Journal 26 (2005): 208-14).
Most of the criticism surrounding Martyn's reconstruction seems to have centered on his appeal to the Birkat ha-minim (the Heretic Benediction). Raimo Hakola ("Identity Matters: John, the Jews, and Jewishness") has recently extended the critique in new directions by suggesting Martyn's proposal does not harmonize with new research on early Rabbinic Judaism. In general, Martyn's theory rests on a picture of the Pharisees exerting extensive control of Jewish society after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. Here are Hakola's specific critiques:

1) the Pharisees had little control over synagogues during the period the FG was written;
2) documentary papyri from A.D. 70–135 reveal the average Jew was not greatly influenced by the Pharisees;
3) the Temple authorities, not the Pharisees, were likely the main enemies of the Johannine community;
4) the rift between Jews and Christians was not precipitated by Christological beliefs but because of differing attitudes towards central symbols of Jewish identity (i.e., the Torah, the Sabbath).

I am far from an expert on second-temple Judaism (frankly, I'm no where near an expert on the Gospel of John either). That said, I will give others the opportunity to comment on Hakola's first three suggestions. Regarding Hakola' last suggestion, it seems problematic on at least two-levels. First, Hakola himself (like Martyn) adopts a "two-level reading" of John that sees the FG reflecting the situation of the Johannine community rather than the life of Jesus. Second, Hakola's suggestion does not provide a satisfactory explanation of the Evangelist's "replacement theme" (Jesus as the fulfillment of major Jewish religious symbols such as the temple and Passover).

Any thoughts . . .

What I Have Learned

2006-04-06T17:44:00.000-05:00

Okay, it has been about three weeks since I lasted posted. I have never been one to post excessively (maybe one or two a week), but even that is pathetic by my standards. So what have I been up to? In short, I'm doing my best to finally graduate this May! About three weeks ago, I turned in the first draft of my thesis to my supervisor, Dr Andreas Kostenberger. Since then, I have been franticly making the necessary corrections and "improvements." A few hours ago, I emailed my second draft to Dr Kostenberger. On Monday, April 10th (the final deadline for submitting all theses to the graduate committee), I hope to submit my final copy, complete with all front-matter.

So what have I learned as a result of this whole ordeal regarding effective research/writing? Here is a list (in no particular order):

1) Make sure you know the style you're using like the back of your hand. When you're putting together a project with page numbers that start to go in the triple digits, going back and fixing silly mistakes becomes a chore and eventually a nightmare. Rereading is necessary. But, you'll save yourself a lot of head-aches if you have it right the first time
2) Find someone who can check your writing to make sure it conforms to the style you're using and pay them well
3) Don't use Microsoft Word! I've been told Wordperfect is much more user-friendly
4) Create a template specifically for your project that conforms to whatever style you're using
5) If you drink coffee to help keep you going when you're tired, don't waste your time drinking the weak stuff. Drink straight espresso, at least three shots at a time!
6) Take as many vacations as your budget allows. Even if they're "working vacations," you'll be more productive in the long-run
7) Spend enough time doing the things that help your relax (in my case, fishing and playing vide0-games) but don't overdue it
8) Work as little as possible. Spend all the time you can WORKING in the library and in coffee-shops
9) Don't get side-tracked by pursuing major ventures like trying to rehab a house in less than a year (unless you can afford to pay someone else to do all the work)!
10) Always listen to the advice of your supervisor. Even if they're fairly "green" they probably know more about writing a major work than you do
11) Settle for nothing less than perfection, no matter the cost and how long it takes
12) Use some form of bibliography software (I've found Endnote fairly helpful)
13) Finally (and most importantly), don't let the important things like God, family, and friends suffer

So What Is Judaism Anyway (Again)

2006-03-16T16:38:00.001-05:00

Over at Earliest Christian History, Dr J. Crossley has a very interesting post on "Christian Origins and the Law" (link). In the comments section, Dr. M. Bird makes the following statement: "Jesus opposed the halakhah of the Pharisees and not Torah per se, but sometimes text and interpretation were not always so nearly separated." It is the distinction Dr. Bird posits between "the halakhah of the Pharisees" and the "Torah" that I was pathetically trying to elicit in my previous post.

As I have read various works that attempt to address the issue of anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John, it seems to me MOST scholars who have addressed this issue fail to make this distinction. As Dr. West noted in the previous post, there were many varieties of "Judaism" in the ancient world. Those who attempt to define "Judaism" narrowly, in my view, miss the point of the FG. In many ways, I see the "Jews" in the FG as something of a collective representative character; a character that is intended to represent adherents of those religious groups (other than "Christianity") that derive their core beliefs from interpretations/supplementations of the Torah. In my view, the Evangelist lumps these diverse groups under the rubric of the noun "Jew" and attempts to portray a Jesus who is the fulfillment of their messianic hopes.

How does this approach to the noun "Jews" impact the question of anti-Judaism in the FG? At the very least, I think it allows for something of a more positive expression of the Evangelist's anti-Judaic stance. This reading of the FG allows for the development of a historical Jesus who does NOT proclaim the inherent inferiority of Judaism. Instead, Jesus becomes something of a reformer/prophet who calls adherents of Judaism to return to the roots of their religious heritage (much like the OT prophets) and recognize the realization of the promises in the Torah in him.

So What Is "Judaism" Anyway?

2006-03-15T16:47:00.000-05:00

Dr. Michael Bird (link) recently posed a question on this blog regarding the Gospel of John and the "parting of the ways" (the break between Judaism and Christianity). Frankly, I am humbled by such questions because they always remind me of how little I know. I do have some OPINIONS about this issue and may even post on them. That said, I would like to gain a better sense of what those in the discipline of NT studies mean by the noun "Judaism."

So here are two (revised) related questions:
1)With regard to the sphere of Christian origins, how should the noun "Judaism" be used when referring to such groups as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Qumranites?
2)Should historical Jesus studies make a firmer distinction between the Hebrew Bible and Judaism (understood in a very broad sense) as religions that are derivative from and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible?

Anti-Judaism and the Gospel of John (again)

2006-03-01T17:45:00.000-05:00

The following points summarize my (brief) research on the subject of anti-Judaism in the FG. I apologize in advance for the rather stale treatment of such an emotionally charged issue. I have simply tried to keep this as short as possible.

1) Despite the contention of some scholars, a distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism is helpful in understanding the message of the FG. The former may be defined as "the hatred and contempt for the Jewish people and their culture." The latter may be defined as "the prejudicial denial of the validity of the Jewish religion as a viable means of attaining genuine knowledge of God" (ie. eternal life).
2) Attempts to limit the referent of the noun Ioudaios ("Judeans," "Jewish authorities" etc.) fail to adequately interpret the FG. Furthermore, while there is a connection between the Evangelist's use of the nouns Ioudaios and kosmos, a purely symbolic meaning (Bultmann, Fortna) does not account for the fact that the Evangelist is referring to real personages. In sum, the noun Ioudaios has a number of referents (primarily religous leaders but also "crowds" of Jewish people) in the FG and describes historical individuals who interacted with Jesus. This reality unfortunately produces strong anti-Semitic potential.
3) The Evangelist's 'high Christology' presents serious problems for the continuing legitimacy of Judaism. While the noun "fulfillment" (versus "replacement") seems to best describe Jesus' relationship to Jewish religious institutions in the FG , its usage does not entirely free the FG from the charge of anti-Judaism. For example, to suggest that the FG portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of the temple (John 2:13-22) still requires one address the contuining role of the Jerusalem temple. In sum, one must ask, "If Jesus fulfills something, does he not (on a rather pragmatic level) also replace it?"
4) The historical situation that gave rise to the composition of the FG also has important bearing on this subject. Not only is the 'Johannine community hypothesis' historically problematic (see S. Motyer, R. Hakola), it leads to an unduly negative portrait of the relationship between the Evangelist's audience and the Jewish people. A better approach to the composition of the FG is to see it as a Christian response to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD (see S. Motyer, A. Kostenberger). This reading would (partly) see the FG as an evangelistic document (cf. 20:30-31) written to portray Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic hopes.
5) In summary, if one distinguishes between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism, there is little room to justify labeling the FG anti-Semitic. After all, this Gospel portays Jesus as a Jew (4:22) and was written to (partly) present the Jewish people with the hope of eternal life. That said, the Evangelist's 'high Christology' and related 'replacement theme' make it difficult to avoid the label 'anti-Judaic.' That said, those who consider the FG authoritative should carefully consider Motyer's suggestion that "[a]nti-Judaism is consistent with a wholehearted love both for Judaism and for Jews" ("Editorial: Is John's Gospel Anti-Semitic?," Themelios 23 (1998): 1).

Blog-roll Update

2006-02-28T19:11:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, I rarely update my blog-roll, much less make announcements when I do so. Nonetheless, I have decided to bring attention to two important changes: the addition of James Crossley's blog ("Earliest Christian History") and David Croteau's blog ("Slave of the Word"). Regarding the former, I have gone on the record on James' blog in support of greater dialogue between "faith-based" scholarship and "secular" scholarship. So I thought it would be rather hypocritical of me if I did not add his blog. That said, his blog is always an interesting read. Regarding the latter, I have known David for slightly over five years and have always appreciated his love for the Bible. The title of his blog says it all.

UPDATE
------------------------
Please also note the addition of J. B. Hood's blog, "Gospel of Matthew." His blog is definitely worth reading for those interested in Matthew.

Anti-Judaism: The Need for a Proper Definition

2006-02-14T17:05:00.000-05:00

"there is a certain overlap between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism . 'The hatred of persons because they are Jews' means that that hatred is directed first at their religion and culture, and then at the persons themselves. However, there is a vital difference: anti-Judaism does not have to be expressed by hatred, while anti-Semitism can only be expressed in this way. Anti-Judaism is consistent with a wholehearted love both for Judaism and for Jews, while anti-Semitism is not."

S. Motyer, "Editorial: Is John's Gospel Anti-Semitic?," Themelios 23 (1998): 1.

The Gospel of John and the Jews

2006-02-06T18:08:00.000-05:00

In light of the previous post, I would like to pose the following (lengthy) question:

Does limiting the referent of the noun Ioudaioi ("Jews") in the Gospel of John to the Jewish authorities (so U. C. Von Wahlde) or Judeans (so M. Lowe, P. Tomson, J. Pilch) sufficiently reduce its anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish potential?

Any takers?

Source Criticism At Its Best (?)

2006-02-06T17:06:00.000-05:00

After finally turning in my chapter on John the Baptist last Tuesday (can you hear the orchestra playing in the background?), I have now moved on to my analysis of Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John. One of the issues I am addressing in this section is the referent and meaning of the noun Ioudaioi ("Jews"). The portrayal of the Jews in the FG is undoubtedly a major reason this canonical work has sadly caused some serious problems in modern history.

One of the works I discuss in this section is an article by Urban C. Von Wahlde entitled, "The Johannine 'Jews': A Critical Survey." In this article, the author attempts to liberate the FG from blame by arguing that the characteristic Johannine use of the noun Ioudaios refers to the Jewish religious leaders. Von Wahdle’s analysis effectively demonstrates the noun does refer to the Jewish leaders in some contexts (cf. 1:19–24; 7:32–36; 9:13–16, 18, 22, 40). Von Wahdle also acknowledges the noun has a number of other referents within the FG (46). However, he distinguishes between these uses and the “Johannine usage” (that of the original author) on the basis of three criteria: 1) the context indicates the author does not refer to the Jewish people as a whole; 2) the context indicates the individuals referred to express hostility towards Jesus; 3) the context indicates the individuals described do not express an elevated degree of hostility towards Jesus (41, 47). Von Wahlde then categorizes the characteristic “Johannine use” into seven distinct groups:
i) those that clearly describe the Jewish authorities expressing hostility (5:10; 9:18; 18:12);
ii) those that clearly describe Jewish authorities who display doubt (1:19);
iii) those who describe individuals expressing disbelief and uncertainty without explicitly identifying them as Jewish authorities (2:18, 22; 7:35);
iv) those that describe individuals who express opposition towards Jesus without explicitly identifying them as Jewish authorities (7:1, 11; 8:22, 48, 52, 57; 10:24, 31, 33; 11:8; 13:33; 18:31, 38; 19:7);
v) instances in the Passion narrative (19:12, 14, 31) that do not present a clear referent but likely refers to the “Jews” in 18:12, 14, 31, 36, who likely are religious leaders;
vi) uses of the noun that seem to describe the common people (6:41, 52) (pg. 47-49).

The careful reader will note a significant problem with Von Wahlde's sixth category. After all, is not the author's primary thesis that the characteristic "Johannine use" of the noun Ioudaios refers to the Jewish authorities? Is not the use of the noun in John 6:41, 52 a glaring and damaging exception to his argument?

While there are several problems with Von Wahlde's analysis, I am especially interested in his treatment of John 6:41, 52. Again, the author admits that these verses pose a serious problem for his thesis (42-44). How does he deal with this serious problem? He simply confines them to the work of a later redactor. These two verses are not the only problematic texts the author attributes to redactional activity. He also makes similar claims regarding John 3:25; 8:31; 10:19.
Von Wahlde's analysis, in my view, is an extremely prejudicial handling of the evidence. I personally cannot help but thinking this is an example of a scholar desperate to prove a theory at all costs. [The author's third criteria for a "Johannine use" of the noun Ioudaios (the absence of an increased degree of hostility) raises similar concerns.] This article makes me thankful for the emergence of Narrative and Canonical criticism in Biblical Studies. Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt desire that we all would be so lucky to develop theories this easily "defended."

The Results Are In...

2006-01-26T17:00:00.001-05:00

I have finally decided to end my two unofficial polls of the blogosphere. So here are the final results:
1) Approximately 2/3 of bloggers (RIGHTLY!) believe that when interpreting the Apocalypse one should first assume a passage is meant to be interpreted "symbolically" unless the context demands a "literal" interpretation;
2) Approximately 2/3 of bloggers believe that the Apocalypse is the most difficult New Testament work to interpret (20% of bloggers chose Romans).

I hope to put together a post sometime soon on interpreting symbolism in the Apocalypse:-)

A Stellar Portrait of God

2006-01-19T16:22:00.000-05:00

Over the past couple of years I have developed a growing interest in the literature of second temple Judaism. Unfortunately, this interest has not translated into a consistent effort to read these writings. Either because of a lack of time or discipline (more likely the latter), I simply have not gone beyond reading a little bit of 1 Enoch and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Anyway, I have (again) picked up J. Charlesworth's "The Old Testament Pseudipigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments" and hopefully the dust will never return to this fascinating volume.

Maybe reading passages like 1 Enoch 9-10 will provide a steady dose of intrinsic motivation for me. Here is part of E. Isaac's translation of 1 Enoch 9-10:

(9:3) "And they [the angels Michael, Surafel, and Gabriel] said to one another, "The earth, (from) her empty (foundation), has brought the cry of their voice unto the gates of heaven. And now, [O] holy ones of heaven, the souls of people are putting their case before you pleading, 'Bring our jugment before the Most High.' " And they said to the Lord of the potentates, "For he is the Lord of lords, and the God of gods, and the King of Kings, and the seat of his glory (stands) throughout all the generations of the world. Your name is holy , and blessed, and glorious throughout all the generations of the world. You have made everything and with you is the authority of everything . . . And now behold, the Holy One will cry, and those who have died will bring their suit up to the gate of heaven. Their groaning has ascended (into heaven), but they could not get out from before the face of the oppression that is being wrought on earth . . . (10:1)And then spoke the Most High, the Great and Holy One! And he sent Asuryal to the son of Lamech, (saying), "Tell him in my name, 'Hide yourself!' and reveal to him the end of what is coming; for the earth and everything will be destroyed. And the Deluge is about to come upon all the earth; and all that is in it will be destroyed. And now instruct him in order that he may flee, and his seed will be preserved for all generations. " And secondly the Lord said to Raphael, "Bind Azaz'el hand and foot (and) throw him into the darkness!"

What primarily intrigues me about this passage are its parallels with the Apocalypse. One finds numberous verbal parallels ("Lord of Lords," "Kings of Kings," "binding"). Perhaps more interesting are the conceptual parallels. Note the similarity between the plea of the "souls of the people" (1 Enoch 9:3) and the "cry of the martyrs" in Rev 6:10. If the martyrs in Rev 6:10 are given "white robes" and told to "rest" by an angel (as seems likely given the use of the verb didwmi throughout Rev), then this would also parallel the portrayal of the angels in 1 Enoch 9, who serve as something of intermediaries between the human and the divine. Note also that the angel Raphael in 1 Enoch 10 :4 acts as a messenger of judgment, which parallels the role of angels throughout the Apocalypse.

Undoubtedly, the author of this text was heavily influenced by the writings of the Old Testament. 1 Enoch 9-10 is a fascinating text and its portrait of God can ALMOST be described as edifying.

Helpful resources on Ephesians

2006-01-11T16:16:00.001-05:00

I am hoping to complete my thesis (by God's grace) within the next three months. After that, I plan to begin research on Ephesians that will hopefully lead to a dissertation proposal. At present, I think I only have three commentaries on Ephesians: Lincoln, O'brien, and C. Hodge. I obviously will need to expand my collection of works on Ephesians.

Here is a list of works on Ephesians I plan on buying/borrowing:
1) Ephesians, E. Best
2) Essays on Ephesians, E. Best
3) Studies in Ephesians, N. Dahl
4) Ephesians, H. Hoehner
5) Ephesians, M. Barth
6) Ephesians, R. Schnackenburg
7) The Theology of the latter Pauline Epistles, Lincoln; Wedderburn; Dunn
8) Ephesians, Muddiman

Any other suggestions? Anything related to the Christology in Ephesians would be especially appreciated:-)

Future Research in Biblical Studies

2006-01-02T23:09:00.000-05:00

Choose the option that best expresses the direction you think future research in Biblical Studies should move towards:

A greater emphasis on theological studies;

A greater emphasis on historical studies;

In Biblical Studies, it is not necessary to create a tight disjunction between Theology and History, so this is a stupid question.

"Jesus Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine?"

2006-01-02T17:41:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I came across the following monograph in the “new books” section at the S.E.B.T.S. library – "Jesus' Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine?" by Stephen Voorwinde. The work is a revision of the author’s dissertation at the Australian College of Theology. Since it includes a chapter on the “temple cleansing” in the Gospel of John, I decided to pick it up and see if it has any helpful material for my thesis.

The following is a brief summary of the author’s conclusion. I have decided to “review” this work because:

I have not posted in a rather long time;

I firmly believe that the discipline of Systematic Theology can greatly benefit from serious work in Biblical Studies;

The Christology of the New Testament, to put it mildly, is an extremely meaningful subject.

Here is my summary of Voorwinde’s conclusion:

In the Gospel of John, the references to Jesus’ emotions are generally connected with his coming passion (2:17; 11:3, 5, 15, 33-38, 47-53; 15:13);

The only pure human emotion Jesus displays in the Gospel of John are his tears in 11:35;

Jesus’ emotions are frequently set in motion by what is best described as divine prescience (cf. 11:15, 33-38; 12:27; 13:21);

The love Jesus displays in the Gospel of John is familial and covenantal. Hence, Jesus’ love is both human (familial) and divine (covenantal).

The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of John is to be understood from a deuteronomostic perspective that allows one to understand Jesus as both “the Lord of the covenant” and “the covenant sacrifice” (267)

Jesus’ displays of emotion in the Gospel of John are directly linked to soteriological concerns (cf. 20:31).

Voorwinde ends his work by stating:
[t]he complexity of his [Jesus’] emotions cannot be adequately accounted for by either a humanistic or a docetic Christology. As the covenant Lord he is portrayed neither as being withdrawn from his creation nor as being absorbed by it. Our study has shown that the Johannine Jesus became involved in this world at a deeply personal and emotional level. His love provides the motivation for the world’s salvation. This salvation is achieved – surprisingly and paradoxically – through the sacrifice of the covenant Lord” (269-70)

Merry CHRISTmas!

2005-12-24T11:51:00.000-05:00

I just want to take the time to wish you a Merry Christmas. I also would like to encourage you to remember that one can "celebrate" Christmas yet completely miss its ultimate significance. God bless.

Mark

John 3:25 and Jewish Purification

2005-12-19T18:01:00.000-05:00

“Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew regarding purification” - John 3:25

Is it just me, or is it impossible to read this verse without thinking, “Okay . . . is there something ‘missing’ here?” No doubt, there are probably a host of issues related to this verse that one might address. I would like to open up a discussion on one in particular: this verse’s relationship to John 2:1-11 (“the miracle at Cana”). I cannot help but think that the mention of purification in John 3:25 is intended to point the reader back to John 2:1-11. Thus far, my research has only turned up a few commentators (Carson, Barrett, and Borchert) that posit a link with John 2:1-11. [If there are others, feel free to correct me on this.]

I would like to pose the following questions:
1) Does John 3:25 allude to John 2:1-11?
2) What is the function of this allusion?

Any takers . . .

John's "rhetorical portrait" of Martyrdom

2005-12-09T16:28:00.000-05:00

Here is my latest attempt at coining some new term for the Biblical studies world. In yesterday's post ("S. Pattemore and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse") I suggested that John writes his composition in such a way that he develops "an idealic picture of the church as a collective group of martyrs." I then described this as a "rhetorical device" and noted that this was probably not the best term. After thinking through what might be a better way of describing what John might be doing, here is what I would like to propose.

In essence, I would argue that John is developing a "rhetorical portrait" of the church as a collective group of martyrs. What I mean by that is that John so strongly wants to encourage individual Christians to bear witness to "the testimony of Jesus" that through the course of his composition, he comes close to developing the formula "Christian = martyr." John is not suggesting ever Christian will be a martyr. Instead, he is attempting to encourage Christians by creating a "world" in which martyrdom becomes a normal occurrence in the life of a anyone who faithfully testifies to the gospel. [On the notion of John "creating a 'world,' see D. Barr, "The Apocalypse as symbolic transformation of the world: a literary analysis," Int 38 (1984: 39-50).]

S. Pattemore and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse

2005-12-08T14:33:00.000-05:00

As I read S. Pattemore's work, "The People of God in the Apocalypse," one of the things I am continually impressed with is how his methodology (primarily Relevance Theory) helps bring out the relevance (pun intended) of the Apocalypse. One of the major problems with the popular (read "dispensationalist") approach to the book of Revelation is that its futurist bent leads to the conclusion that Rev 4-22 is largely irrelevant for the contemporary audience. Nothing could be further from the truth (cf. Rev 1:3) and Pattemore's chapter, "Souls under the altar- a martyr ecclesiology" thoroughly demonstates this. His chapter is primarily an examination of Rev 6:9-11 and its literary links in 12:10-12; 16:5-7; 19:1-2; 20;4-6.

The following is a helpful statement that helps capture his overall approach to martyrdom in the Apocalypse: "[w]hen the whole Apocalypse has been heard, it will be clear that suffering for the faith involves many things before death. But the witnessing church is first and foremost identified collectively as a martyr church, patterned after the martyr status of the Lamb." Pattemore, therefore, seems to give due weight to the theme of martyrdom and the larger theme of "witnessing to the testimony of Jesus." I especially think the final sentence captures well what one encounters in the Apocalypse. As one reads, one gets the sense that John is developing an idealic picture of the church as a collective group of martyrs. I prefer to think of this as somewhat of a "rhetorical device" (I'm sure there is a more apt description) that aims to present martyrdom as "the normal Christian life."

That said, here is a link to the story of a man who "lived out" the message of the Apocalypse.

link

S. Pattemore on Daniel 7 and the Apocalypse

2005-12-07T20:45:00.001-05:00

I've (thankfully) continued to enjoy reading S. Pattemore's work, "The People of God in the Apocalypse." Especially interesting is his discussion of the use of Daniel 7 in the book of Revelation. Pattemore's discussion includes an extremely helpful table that analyzes the "narrative structure" of Daniel 7 and notes plausible allusions to that text in the Apocalypse (120). [Interestingly, Pattemore describes some of them as "weak allusions" (see previous post on Pattemore's work).] He also analyzes "the pattern of allusion to the structural elements of Daniel 7 in Revelation" (122-124). His discussion leads to some interesting conclusions. Of especial note are the following.

First, Pattemore notes the prominence given to the "one like a Son of Man" in Rev 1:7, 13 and concludes "[t]he audience's perception of these two strong contextual allusions . . . means that Daniel 7 is a link, binding together the world within the vision and the audience's own world outside the vision" (122). Second, Pattemore suggests, "the climax of Daniel's narrative, the close association of the rule of the son of man with the rule of the saints, is presented by John at the very beginning of his prophetic letter both as a present fact (1:6) and as a promise to the overcomers (2:16-28; 3:21) (123)." Third, Pattemore observes that "echoes of Daniel's description of the heavenly court, the judgment of the beasts and the judgment for the saints, are to be found primarily at the two ends of the second vision, namely chs. 4-5 and 19-22 . . . [s]een like this, the whole book is like an expansion of the throne-room scene of Daniel 7" (123-24).

Pattemore's study continues to provide much "food for thought."

Readings in Afrocentric Christianity

2005-12-02T23:15:00.000-05:00

Last week a friend of mine gave me a book entitled, "Afrocentrism & Christian Faith" by Dr. Wyatt T. Walker. The book consists of two lectures given at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in 1993 and two other essays. I finally began reading it today. Needless to say, this is certainly a thought-provoking book and looks to be an interesting read. Here are some initial thoughts and observations.

The author is (not surprisingly) strongly opposed to capitalism. However, what it is interesting to note is that he makes an implicit connection between racism and capitalism. Furthermore, the author directly connects capitalism with “Eurocentric Christianity.”

The author explicitly affirms that Afrocentric Christianity is a syncretism of “African traditional religion” and Christianity. While I am quite ignorant on this subject, I must say that I found the casual use of the noun “syncretism” both surprising and almost shocking.

The author counters the suggestion that slavery resulted in the eventual evangelization of slaves by suggesting, “[i]t is either naïve or ignorant to presume that the Africans brought to the Americas came without some clear sense of God-given spirituality” (4). [This is not meant to suggest that I personally condone the practice of slavery. On a personal note, being from the Caribbean and of “mixed” ethnicity, it is possible that some of my ancestors were once themselves slaves.]

More to come soon . . .

Allusions, citations, echoes (AGAIN)

2005-11-29T18:04:00.000-05:00

Should exegetes avoid classifying the myriad of ways in which the New Testament writers use the Old Testament as S. Pattemore suggests (see previous post)? I can appreciate Pattemore’s emphasis on understanding the text of Scripture. I would even agree that determining whether a given use of the OT is a “quotation,” “allusion,” “echo,” etc. does not directly help one interpret how that text is being used in the NT. Nonetheless, it seems the jargon used to categorize how a NT writer is using an OT text provides a helpful means of expressing how closely the NT writer “mirrors” an OT text. This in turns allows the exegete to convey the degree of likelihood a NT writer is using an OT text and thus interpret a greater number of NT texts intertextually. For example, while Paul does not indicate in Philippians 2:16b that he quoting from Daniel 12:3, an analysis of both passages indicates that he is likely directed the reader to interpret Phil 2:16 in light of Dan 12:3. In fairness to Pattemore, he would likely respond that since the cognitive environments are close enough and the results one gleans from interpreting Phil 2:16 in light of Dan 12:3 would have been relevant to Paul’s audience, then Phil 2:16b and Dan 12:3 are sufficiently parallel contexts. [One should note here that Pattemore's approach seems closely related to Hays' criteria of 'satisfaction' (see R. Hays, Echoes of Scripture).]

Pattemore’s approach to intertextuality is especially helpful for weighing the possibility that a given OT (or second temple) text is being alluded to by a NT writer. Nonetheless, using (subjective) categories such as ‘allusion,’ ‘echo,’ etc. does allow the exegete to convey the degree of likelihood that a NT writer is in fact intentionally using the OT. This opens to door to consider another possible problem with Pattemore’s methodology – an overemphasis of the audience/reader to the exclusion of the author.

More on this last point to come . . .

Allusions, citations, echoes, etc.,etc., etc.,

2005-11-24T16:57:00.000-05:00

Lately I've been reading S. Pattemore's "The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, and Exegesis." Thus far, I've been impressed with his handling of the text of Rev 6. I've also found his approach to Old Testament and second temple parallels quite interesting. Pattemore's use of Relevance Theory (more on this to come) seems to help him make judicious decisions regarding possible intertextual connections. I plan on commenting more on his approach to intertextuality, but for now I will begin with a "short" quotation:

"[H]ow does it advance our understanding of a text if we distinguish between a quotation and an allusion? If an allusion is deliberate and recognizable, then it is equivalent to a quotation because it conveys communicative propositions like 'I have taken this idea from the former text' and 'the former text has something to contribute to your understanding of my meanings' as cognitive effects. Even a formal quotation may convey no more than this, in terms of communicative intents."

The Pocket Dictionary of Charismatic "Theology"

2005-11-18T13:30:00.000-05:00

For those of you who have always wondered what constitutes an "overcomer" in Revelation 2-3, you might want to check out this helpful explanation of common terms used by those in the contemporary Charismatic movement.

link

Jesus and the Trinity (finally)

2005-11-15T17:54:00.000-05:00

I guess I've finally found the time to put together some thoughts on John 14:28. Hopefully the first question that was posed in the previous post demonstrates that if someone reads Jesus' statement properly (ie., looking at the overall context) it is obvious that Jesus is not making a statement about his ontological relationship to the Father. Instead, Jesus is likely saying something about his mission as the Father's "representative." Rather than being a statement about his ontological relationship to the Father, Jesus' statement would then point to his subordinate status relative to the Father (4:34; 5:30; 6:38).

Jesus' statement, "because I am going to the Father" should likely be seen in relation to his role as "the sent one" (cf. 3:17; 4:34; 5:23; 8:29). That is, the one who was sent is now portrayed in 14:28 stating that he is going back to the one who sent him. Therefore, Jesus' words likely signify that his mission will soon end. If Jesus' mission will soon end, then his disciples would have good reason to rejoice. Finally, it is likely that when Jesus speaks of the Father's greatness, his words should be seen in light of John 10:28-29. Jesus' words would then point to the reality that the disciples need not fear (14:27) because the Father is fully able to protect them (cf. 17:15).

I suppose one of the things that can be learned from this is that there is a serious difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Was Jesus anti-Trinitarian (John 14:28)?

2005-11-09T22:00:00.000-05:00

The Sunday School class I'm involved in has recently been discussing John 14. Last Sunday, we were discussing the latter half of that chapter and someone suggested that Jesus' statement "for the Father is greater than I" in v. 28 seems problematic for an orthodox view of the Trinity. Some one else in the class noted that this verse is used by some religious groups in their anti-Trinitarian polemic.

I declined to comment on the statement, thinking that such a complex and important issue deserved more than a cavalier answer. I have some thoughts regarding Jesus' statement and felt this might be a good topic to discuss at "the round table."
So here are two questions for discussion:

1) What is the relationship between Jesus' statement, "for the Father is greater than I," his departure to "the Father" and the disciples love for Jesus?
2) Closely related to # 2, what are the implications of Jesus' statement for our understanding of the "Father"?

[I originally had three questions for discussion, but it seems to me that if you one can gain a better sense of what Jesus is conveying in the ENTIRE sentence, then one can determine if Jesus is anti-Trinitarian or not. There thus was no need for the first question (whatever it was).]

Any thoughts...

"Jesus' Cleansing of the Temple" vs. "Jesus' ______ of the Temple"

2005-11-03T17:04:00.000-05:00

In true Alan Bandy fashion, I've decided to try my hand at coining a new theological expression. After reading and pondering Michael Bird's helpful comments about the 'temple cleansing' (see my first post on the temple cleansing in John), I made the determination to find a more accurate description of what Jesus likely was trying to symbolize through his actions in the Jerusalem temple. I know this is not very politically correct, but I think the phrase "Jesus' denunciation of the Temple" may a more accurate ways of describing his overall intention. [I have not read everything on this subject, so if someone else has come up with this phrase, I apologize!] Jesus' description of the temple as "my Father's house" (2:16), however, might suggest that the word "denunciation" is too negative to effectively capture what Jesus is symbolizing.
I do appreciate Sanders' critique of the "Temple cleansing" theory, but I can't help but think it leaves something out. This seems especially likely since he envisions the restoration of the Jerusalem temple by another physical temple. This is certainly not what seems to be presented in the FG (cf. John 2:19). Alan B. has some helpful comments about "both/and" interpretations (see cafeapocalypsis.blogspot.com), but I think this is one case where it is appropriate. I would therefore allow for the possibility that Jesus' action was intended to symbolize more than the Temple's destruction.

Any thoughts...

What will they try to sell next?

2005-11-02T23:11:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting article about the latest Bible out on the market. Is the underlying problem with this PRODUCT the research it is based on or the approach to Bible study it advocates?

Any thoughts...

link: the next great Bible study tool

The Temple Cleansing in John

2005-11-01T21:38:00.000-05:00

I've spent the past couple of days mulling over John 2:13ff and thought this might be an interesting topic to begin discussing. The two main difficulties that I've been wrestling with are 1) the placement of the Temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in the FG; 2) the symbolic significance of Jesus' act.

Regarding the first issue, I am open to the possibility that there were actually two Temple cleansings during Jesus' ministry. The differences between John's account and the Synoptics at least allow for the possibility that there were two cleansings. Furthermore, several scholars note that John 1-5 contains traditions that are unique to the FG, suggesting that the Evangelist is narrating a period of Jesus' ministry that is unrecorded in the Synoptics. I know that this is the minority position. Regardless, the Evangelist seems to portray a Jesus that is motivated by different factors (note the absence of an appeal to Isa 56:7). This could also allow for the possibility that there two cleansings.

Regarding the second issue (and more important in my opinion), I am open to Jesus expressing opposition to the priestly class (the corruption of the Temple authorities is well documented by C. Evans and R. Bauckham). I am ALSO open to Jesus' act being understood as symbolic of the temple's destruction and replacement (by him). This latter point is based on the presence of a possible allusion to Zech 14:21 in John 2:16b, Jesus' response in 2:19, and the larger 'replacement' theme in the FG.

In my view, the distinction between Jesus' act as a "cleansing/purification" (eg. Evans) or a "symbol of the Temple's destruction" (Sanders) is an unwarranted disjunction.

Any thoughts . . .

Hello Biblioblogdom!

2005-11-01T21:29:00.000-05:00

I must begin by thanking Alan Bandy for introducing me to the world of Biblioblogdom. This seems like a really helpful way of interacting with (somewhat) like-minded individuals and I look forward to lots of fruitful discussion.