NTW and the Authorship of Ephesians

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

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

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:-(

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

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)

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?

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)

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

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

"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

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 (?)

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...

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

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

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

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

1. A greater emphasis on theological studies;


2. A greater emphasis on historical studies;


3. 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?"

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:

1. I have not posted in a rather long time;


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


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

Here is my summary of Voorwinde’s conclusion:

1. 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);


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


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


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


5. 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)


6. 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!

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

“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

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).]