Responding to a quote from Mark Driscoll:
I frankly have trouble understanding how a follower of Jesus could find himself unable to worship a guy he could “beat up” when he already crucified him.
Read the whole article, Revelation and the Violent “Prize Fighting” Jesus.
The gentleman came to me with a sheaf of papers after a meeting at which I was speaking. “I’d like you to read this,” he said, holding them out to me. Now this was before I had started publishing, not that I haven’t had related experiences since. But even so, this gentleman wanted me to…
Suzanne McCarthy has been blogging on complementarianism over on the Better Bibles Blog. I have been following her posts with interest, and I would like to commend them to my readers. The entries to date are: Modes of Communication I, Modes of Communication II, Modes of Communication III. Suzanne obviously doesn’t subscribe to the “snazzy…
Bart Ehrman’s books tend to get quite a bit of hype around them, but when one actually reads them, one finds the work of a fine, generally balanced scholar. This is true of The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, as it was of Misquoting Jesus, which I reviewed early in a series of posts. Ben…
I will not be continuing my eschatology study tonight. I will be giving the final session of the eschatology series next Thursday night. At that time, I will take a break and will return June 23, 2016. I will announce what I’ll be studying as we move forward. The reason for this hiatus is that…
Above is the theme banner for my study of the gospel of John. The video below is a trailer for it. I am working on getting used to video. I’m more comfortable with text, I think.
Via Dave Black Online and Nick’s blog I found that biblioblogger Nick Norelli’s church, Harvest of Souls International Ministries, has a new web site. Now why do I link to this particular church web site at this moment? Is it merely to congratulate them? Well, I do congratulate them, but I had something more specific…
Indeed – thanks Henry.
I think Dr. Boyd’s criticism of Driscoll hits its mark (pardon pun), but I continue to have a problem with his having to undergird human pacifism with divine pacifism. I think this leads him and others (Bauckham, Caird et al) to interpret Revelation with the tail wagging the dog. For example, does the sword that comes out of Jesus’ mouth have to signify mere words? There are commentators of Revelation who point out that a Roman dagger/sword looks like a tongue. Furthermore, it is noted that Revelation could be drawing from Wisdom of Solomon where “your all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior carrying (!) the sharp sword of your authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death…” (18:15-16). Since Jesus is called the “Word of God” in the passage that also mentions the mouth-sword, this becomes plausible. Dr. Boyd also fails to account for the image of striking down and the rod of iron (not very verbal) in the very same verse (Rev 19:15). Also, does the fact that Jesus comes to the battle with a robe dipped in blood have to mean that this is exclusively refering to his crucifixion? This verse (19:13) is prefaced with a description of Jesus as judging and waking war (19:11) so the temporal aspect which Dr. Boyd and others try to exploit is not that strong (see Isaiah 63:1-6). I just don’t see why “genre and historical context” favors Dr. Boyd’s approach when I think both work against him, and for reasons that have little to do with a too “literalistic” reading. Dr. Boyd’s response is that the author uses the genre to “turn it on its head”, which admits that the genre is not conducive to his pacifistic approach! The context could be to offer Christians a vision of justice in order for them to cope with their crises. I think Dr. Boyd would find that he doesn’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater