Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • NPP: A Starting Position

    I’ve been reading some more on the new perspectives on Paul, and particularly focusing on a <a href="http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html"summary written by Mark W. Mattison and provided by The Paul Page, and a response to that summary by Chan Lai Ping. I’m going to use the list of key points in the response as a starting point. In this entry I’m merely stating where I start from as I study, and am not really trying to support that more than superficially.

    Chan Lai Ping lists five issues, giving the traditional position (since Martin Luther) and the summary position of the new perspectives. Note that there are many scholars involved in what’s loosely called the “new perspectives on Paul” and they do not necessarily agree on all issues.

    The five key issues are:

    1. Individualism – whether justification is primarily about the individual or the community
      My own view is that we tend to misread the entire Bible in the western world because of our individualistic view. The Biblical writers were always more concerned with community than we are, and this applies to Paul as well. Paul writes pastorally, as the pastor of church with the intent of building the health of those churches. This involves individual action and individual choices, but all of that is on the way to community
    2. Judaism – whether Judaism in the first century was a religion of legalism, and whether Paul’s attacks on the old Jerusalem can be read as an attack on Judaism
      Until I studied Galatians through the commentary by J. Louis Martyn I would have said that while Judaism is not primarily a religion of legalism, and the old covenant was not intended as legalistic, Paul was combating folks who made it into something legalistic. I think Martyn makes a good case that Paul’s “earthly Jerusalem” is that element based in the Jerusalem church that opposes his mission. Their particular legalism was in requiring the gentiles to be circumcised, and so become Torah observant Jews in order to be Christians. Now I believe it was Christian Jews who were placing this requirement on gentiles, one that was not actually a requirement of Judaism itself.
    3. The core of Paul’s message – was it more narrowly justification or a broader view of Christ’s death and resurrection
      This is a hard one for me to answer, because it seems to me that for Paul the opening of the door to the gentiles was the key element of the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. This act of grace made it possible for the old age and it’s barriers to be removed and exchanged with the new age. Justification is a key fruit of that.
    4. What Paul meant by the law – was Paul against all actions that might become regarded as a work, or just the misuse of the law
      Here I believe Paul was strongly opposed to misuse of the law, including the law as a means of gaining God’s favor. He obviously had no problem with admonitions and requirements, however, because he gave his churches quite a number of them. I suspect our theology might be different if students of Paul spent more time in 1 Corinthians and less in Galatians. Paul was pastoral first, which I believe is one reason that sometimes he doesn’t seem as clear and consistent as we’d like in his theology. If we just knew the pastoral situation he was addressing, I think things would make more sense.
    5. Paul’s conscience – did he face a constant battle, or was he convinced of his own standing
      This one I’ll have to work on. It seems to me that Paul had a testimony of struggles that ended in victory, so that his writing doesn’t speak with one voice. My guess as I start looking at him more seriously is that he lived a life of victory, but didn’t spend all his time on the mountaintop, much like many of us today.

    (For discussion, please see the <a href="http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html"summary and response cited above.)

    I expect to spend some time going through various of these articles on Paul and making further notes on some of the key passages.

  • Miracles and Community

    I’ve been reading Mark through as part of preparation to resume my series on the Gospel of Mark for the Bible Pacesetter Podcast. Right now I’m listening to and then podcasting recordings of the radio program from which this developed just before we closed that program down three years ago. It’s an interesting process getting back into a series after a three month break!

    A couple of days ago I was reading the following:

    (1) And he went out from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. (2) And since it was the Sabbath, he started teaching in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed, and said, “Where do these things come from, and what is the wisdom that is given to him, and these miracles that happen through his hands? (3) Is not this the craftsman, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” They were scandalized about him. (4) And Jesus said to them, “A prophet does not fail to receive honor except in his own country and among his kinsmen in his household.” (5) And he was not able to perform any miracle, except that he laid hands on a few people and healed them. (6) And he was amazed because of their lack of faith. — Mark 6:1-6

    That’s my working translation that I make as part of my preliminary study, so check it out in your own version. What I was asking myself as I read this was just what it was that prevented Jesus from doing as many miracles at home as he did elsewhere?
    The easy answer, of course, is that the people lacked faith. But then a second question comes up: Why could he heal a few sick people anyhow?

    There is very little said here about the causes of this story, but I often tell folks to learn from the story and not just the text, so I want to think just a little bit about this story. What makes Nazareth different? Jesus has encountered many people who believed in him, and many people who did not. He has encountered opposition as well as support. But here in Nazareth he encounters this wall of unbelief that prevents him from performing miracles, with a few exceptions.

    One cause we can see from the story is familiarity. The people cannot see how God can come to them in the person of a common person that they knew all their lives. It’s the standard problem of the young pastor coming to his home church, and being informed by various people that they changed his diapers when he was a baby. This allows them first to feel very proud of their contribution to making “a fine young pastor” and at the same time to doubt that they can learn anything real from him.

    That would certainly reduce the number of miracles. Less people would ask. Why should that little fellow who used to play in the street be able to heal me? We often diminish what we can receive from God because we despise the channels by which he sends it. God may be trying to send you peace and comfort by means of your dog. Are you ready to receive it? He can be trying to invade your life through the person who comes in and does your yard. Is that OK with you?

    Apparently it wasn’t OK with the people at Nazareth. They weren’t ready for that. But I suspect there was a bigger issue here. You see, Jesus has been preaching the kingdom of God and repentance. Repentance is often not a welcome message. It means that we’re doing something wrong, we have to acknowledge it, and get moving in a better direction. If I’m going to be put straight, I want the correction to come from someone who is both smarter than I am and more spiritual.

    In Nazareth, there was a general rejection of a message of repentance that came from the home town boy. They were amazed at what he had to say, but they couldn’t bring themselves to believe that he was the right person to say it. They couldn’t bring themselves to accept the kingdom of God in that form.

    And that’s where the miracle problem came in, I believe. When Jesus healed people and drove out demons it was a sign of the arrival of the kingdom of God. A new community was on the way, and new way of looking at one another. God was invading history and changing everything around, bringing on a new creation. Reject the kingdom, and what happens to the signs?

    I know of many churches that are longing for God to become active in their congregation and community. How can that happen? It’s the sign of God’s community. Look for the barriers to being the kingdom of God wherever you are. You can’t have the sign without the event. You can’t have the healing power of Jesus without the person of Jesus.

  • Christian Carnival CLXX

    . . . has been posted at Brain Cramps for God. It has a nice theme, lots of good information and many interesting posts, including my very own post from this blog, Look at New Perspectives on Paul.

  • Information on FV (Federal Vision)

    I found the this post on the Federal Vision (FV) because the author tracked back to a post on my Threads blog that is related to my Look at New Perspectives on Paul entry. It’s not my intent to discuss the FV and the relationship of the Westminster Confession to the new perspectives on Paul, nor do I plan to debate the doctrinal issues of the PCA directly. But I suspect that most readers of this blog are not PCA and might want to know what those things are since I referenced them.

    Having provided these links, my plan is to blog about materials I read on NPP strictly from the point of view of their accuracy. Are the new perspectives giving us a better idea of what Paul meant or not? I won’t be trying to fit those ideas into a particular doctrinal perspective. I do have one, of course. I don’t deny having biases and preconceptions. I’ll do my best, however, to set them aside.

  • Praying, Being Heard, and Not Getting It

    7Who, in the days of his flesh, offered entreaties and petitions to the one who was able to save him from death with loud cries and tears, and he was heard because of his piety. 8Even though he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered, 9and being made whole he became a means of eternal salvation to all those who obey him, 10since he was designated by God as a priest according to the priestly order of Melchizedek. — Hebrews 5:7-10

    I’m writing this on the national day of prayer. A “national” day of prayer makes me wonder just what we’re praying for and how. But it reminded me of a question I hear frequently: “Why should anyone pray if they’re not going to get what they pray for?” That question starts with a false premise. It assumes that you won’t. But since I believe that quite often you will not get what you pray for, I should give it consideration.

    In Hebrews 5:7-10, we have the statement that Jesus prayed. He prayed to “the one who was able to save him from death.” I presume such a prayer might have, and did, occur many times during his ministry, but likely this reference is primarily to his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” He also placed that prayer under subjection to God’s will. Now if the text stopped in the middle of verse seven, we might imagine that the prayer of Jesus was not heard because he didn’t get what he was asking for.

    But the text explicitly says that Jesus was heard. And there is what’s hard for us to get hold of. Praying is not about getting stuff. Praying is about our communion with God. That’s why all these scientific tests about prayer and healing largely miss the mark. They’re interesting, but the can’t test prayer because prayer is not a means of getting things.

    What if the prayer of Jesus was counted in a scientific test? It would certainly go into the “failed” column. He didn’t get what he asked for. And yet he was heard, and what actually happened was better–in the end–than what he had requested. It happens that way because there’s a lot more knowledge on God’s end of the prayer than on mine.

    So a national day of prayer invites me to commune with God, and that is the only purpose I have to have. If I have communed with God, my prayer worked. The amazing thing is that I often would rather have God do it my way. I’m in touch with infinite power and infinite knowledge, but what I ask is that God use his infinite power to make things work the way I–oh so incredibly finite–want them to.

    One of the most blessed characteristics of this universe is that God doesn’t always answer our prayers in the way that we would prefer.

    Jesus was the great example of this. One thing was refused him–escape from the cross. Through that one refusal, a refusal he invited by saying “not my will but yours,” our salvation was secured.

    Aren’t you thankful that God doesn’t do things your way?

  • Look at New Perspectives on Paul

    This will be a slightly different post than my usual for this blog. Normally I grab a Bible passage or a principle of interpretation and comment on it. In this post, I want to tie together several threads of my blogging and teaching and point the direction toward some new questions that I’d like to examine as I continue some of my current study.

    I was launched in this particular direction by a post at Adrian Warnock’s blog, The PCA Considering Excluding the Followers of N. T. Wright. Now I’ve been watching Adrian’s blog lately because of the various atonement wars (as I call them), and things about N. T. Wright are bound to catch my attention. I have truly appreciated reading Wright’s material on the historical Jesus. His thorough scholarship and remarkably courteous form of dialog are quite refreshing. It’s not my plan to criticize anyone’s readings of the Westminster Confessions. I am, after all, not Calvinist. But the broader issues involve are very important to me.

    In addition, I just started podcasting a series on Mark that came from the older Bible Pacesetter Radio Program. This series was started 11/24/2003, and continued into 2004 until we canceled that program. Now I’m using the old programs, and then planning to continue through Mark. In listening to my teaching, I couldn’t help but notice some dependence on N. T. Wright for things that I said about Mark’s view of the proclamation.

    Further, I just completed a read through Galatians alongside J. Louis Martyn’s commentary, and I have saved more than 20 note items intended for future blogging out of Galatians. I’m not going to call that a series, because I have no idea when I’ll get to them. I already have numerous items for my series on Hebrews that I simply haven’t had time to post.

    I would note here that my primary training was in the ancient near east and in Old Testament, rather than New Testament. Yes, my concentration was Biblical languages, but at the graduate level that involved a very small amount of Greek, and a very large amount of Hebrew, but since I now spend my time teaching lay audiences, the New Testament is more in demand. This whole issue has become somewhat more important to me.

    So I followed this all up by starting to read from The Paul Page which is dedicated to the new perspective on Paul. One key item immediately caught my attention. As argued by Martyn, the new perspective relates the controversy over circumcision more to the identification with God’s people than to a faith-works issue. In a related point, Martyn argues that the “Jerusalem” of Galatians was not Judaism, but the circumcision oriented mission to Judaism which was based in, if not supported by, the Jerusalem church.

    A second key item is the view of Judaism, and particular the view of the law in the Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures. It has always seemed to me that New Testament scholars do not characterize this view accurately. It seems more like a caricature, but I haven’t taken the time to work on that in detail.

    This leads to the following comment, also from The Paul Page (Summary):

    Translating the doctrine of justification into contemporary terms, Wright notes with irony that this doctrine, which was principally concerned with unity and acceptance in the body of Christ regardless of social barriers, has been one of the most divisive doctrines in the history of Christianity, particularly between Catholics and Protestants who have traditionally interpreted it as a question of precisely how salvation is to be attained.

    I think this is a point of critical importance. How is something that is supposed to bring joy, freedom, and unity so often construed as a way to divide the body of Christ?

    In discussing this and other issues related to the atonement, I’m going to be working through these materials and becoming better informed on this new perspective.

    Update: Since I’m not Calvinist, I won’t be interacting with this that much, but I think it is only fair to present a link to the PCA preliminary report.

  • Christian Carnival CLXIX

    . . . has been posted at Imago Dei.

    I’ve resubmitted my post, which I sent to the wrong e-mail address, under the generous “submit by Friday” note. Thanks to Mandi Kaye for hosting.

  • Christian Carnival CLXVIII

    . . . has been posted at Random Acts of Verbiage. A group of Christian bloggers have been pulling this all back together. Dory has been out of touch and she is in all our prayers. We are hoping she is just excessively busy.

    HT: Lingamish.

  • Galatians 3:15-18 – Preliminary Thoughts on Seed and Seeds

    I want to make a few quick notes on this passage right after studying through Martyn’s Galatians commentary notes on it. This is a passage that has troubled many because in verse 16 Paul makes a major issue of the singular “seed,” thus pointing the passage directly at Christ. Now if one reads the passage in its original context, “seed” is a collective, referring to all of Abraham’s descendants, and thus the meaning is precisely the opposite of what Paul claims.

    I didn’t use this passage in my essay Was Paul an Exegete? but I certainly could have. In that essay I concluded that in the modern sense of searching out the original historical meaning, Paul was not, and didn’t try to be an exegete. I would add here that Paul is quite open about how he sees Jesus as the Messiah breathing new life into texts.

    There are several key points from this passage that I want to tentatively connect. Paul claims that:

    • God established the promises
    • The promises were for the seed, singular, Christ
    • Nobody other than the one who makes a will/covenant can modify it
    • The law could not modify or set aside the promise that preceded it. This involves the argument that the law was given by angels, but that goes beyond what I’m discussing right now.
    • Eventually the promise meets its fulfillment in Christ

    Now Martyn, commenting on these verses indicates that the law is not, according to this passage, another step in salvation history, but rather that the giving of the promise, and finally the act of God in bringing reconciliation through Jesus are both punctiliar events. He does not see the law as another step or another way of implementing the promise (pp. 337-352).

    The Jewish view, which in part would have been incorporated by the teachers who opposed Paul in Galatia, makes the Torah a single whole. There are not separate entities in it of “promise” and “law” and there certainly would not be a covenant without there also being a law. Sirach 44:19-21 represents Abraham as law observant, and presents God’s promise as depending on Abraham’s faithfulness in fulfilling the requirements. So Paul is hear creating a substantial difference in view between these historical events. The giving of the promise occurs before the giving of the law, and even though it comes from that same portion of scripture, the Pentateuch or Torah, it is not part of the same law. The law, given at Sinai, is something separate and different, and cannot in Paul’s view alter the original promise, nor is it an organic part of that promise.

    Gentiles are not being brought into Israel through the covenant at Sinai. Rather, they are being brought into God’s promise, incidentally given to Abraham, a promise that is superior to and unalterable by that law.

    My preliminary suggestion here is that this relates closely to what I have pointed out in my article Structural Typology and the Tabernacle, where I suggest that God’s original intent was to dwell with his people (Exodus 19:6), but that because of fear they required a separation (Exodus 20:19). The Tabernacle, far from representing God’s presence, in many ways represents God’s absence. Peter sees the fulfillment of this goal and promise of God in Jesus and the church (1 Peter 2:9).

    Where I would differ from Martyn, I think, on salvation history is that the law is indeed a step in salvation history. There may be two punctiliar acts, between which the law is a parenthesis (Martyn), but that parenthesis is an essential one, tuned to human needs. There is still salvation history, but that history is not a continuous march of progress, but rather it takes detours as God deals with people as he finds them and leads them in the direction he wants them to go.

    In this sense one can also see “seed” as an inspired “breathing-in” by Paul, through the Holy Spirit, of new meaning into the word and form, because in Jesus all the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled in one man (singular) for everyone (very plural). The spiritual application trumps the historical exegesis.

  • Galatians and Penal Substitutionary Atonement

    It will generally surprise nobody that I am not a fan of penal substitutionary atonement, as I’ve written about it before. I do believe that PSA is one valid metaphor that helps us understand the greater truth that is the atonement. What I object to is making this particular metaphor the central fact of the atonement.

    One pillar on which PSA stands is the idea that justification should be understood primarily in a judicial sense. In commenting on this on Compuserve Religion Forum, I brought material in from J. Louis Martyn. The following is quoted from my message there:

    At an earlier time I would have granted the notion that Paul’s use of “justification/justify/righteousness” was related to the language of the courtroom, but I am changing my mind on that point.  I have been reading Galatians through in Greek for my devotions, along with J. Louis Martyn’s commentary from the Anchor Bible series.  He makes some serious points on understanding Paul’s usage of the terms, starting from the basic early Jewish-Christian (Christians of Jewish birth) understanding, through the concord between the Jewish and Gentile missions, and from there to the specific approach of the teachers against whom Paul argues in Galatians.

    Let me just quote a short portion:

    “. . . All of the translation options listed above [he has listed the major English translations-HN] have one weighty liability: they are at home either in the language of the law– where “to justify” implies the existence of a definable legal norm–or in the language of religion and morality–where “righteousness” implies a definable religious or moral norm.  As we will see, Paul intends his term to be taken into neither of these linguistic realms. . . . ”  — p. 249-250, commenting on Galatians 2:16

    It would be well beyond the sort of effort I’m willing to put in to quote all the relevant arguments, not to mention it would bring up questions of copyright, but I think Martyn does an excellent job of discussing these points.  In fact, those who read “justify” in a legal context fall into part of the error of the teachers who are the target of Paul’s wrath.

    I would commend reading Martyn’s work on Galatians and also from his collection of essays Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul.  I have to admit that I have had to shift a number of my previous viewpoints on Paul’s views through reading these two books.  As another example, Martyn argues convincingly that Paul never speaks of Judaism as such in Galatians.  When he refers to Jerusalem as Hagar (Galatians 4:21-31) he does not mean Jews and Judaism, but rather the church of Jerusalem and specifically the mission that was claiming its support in a mission to the gentiles that required Torah observance of gentiles.

    I have to add this now to my short list of books that have fundamentally shifted some portion of my Biblical understanding.  Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus is first, then Gordon Fee’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, Brevard Childs’ Isaiah, and now Martyn’s Galatians.  All of them powerful pieces of writing.

    Feel free to comment either here or in the Religion Forum thread as linked above.