Seland Review #3

Third installment.

Chapter 5: "Conduct Yourselves Honorably Among the Gentiles" (1 Peter 2:12), Acculturation and Assimilation in 1 Peter
Seland read this paper in Edinburgh in 1998, and so it is the second essay of the book taken in chronological order. I personally found this chapter the most interesting and helpful of all.

In this chapter, Torrey addresses the question of the degree to which the author of 1 Peter intends for the audience to be assimilated to its non-Christian environment. His thesis is three fold (148). First, he does not believe the terms acculturation and assimilation have been used thus far to great advantage in analyzing the social strategies of 1 Peter. Secondly, those studies that have used these terms in relation to 1 Peter have not tapped into the extensive use of them in the social sciences.

Finally, he argues that they apply to the Christians of 1 Peter as "first generation Christians ... still in a process of being socialized into the Christian world view." Torrey suggests they are in somewhat of a "liminal" situation as newly converted Christians. As such, he sets out to review key literature on 1 Peter in relation to its social situation, to dip into relevant social scientific research on acculturation and assimilation, and then apply these findings to 1 Peter.

Part 1
Seland's review of relevant New Testament research leads him to three key players, namely, David Balch, John Elliott, and John Barclay. Balch's work focused primarily on the household codes of 1 Peter, and his basic thesis is that "such codes were used in a apologetic and legitimating way in Graeco-Roman sources" (150). Balch--at least in his earlier work--characterizes such a purpose as assimilation. The audience of 1 Peter is being told to integrate themselves into society.

Elliott disagrees. The fact that the letter calls for Christians to separate from the world, as well as its missionary emphases, indicate for him that the Petrine house codes are discouraging assimilation for the purpose of avoiding suffering. Seland's critique of both is that neither use the terms assimilation and accommodation with the precision of the social sciences.

Barclay, on the other hand, is more precise in his terms, although his well known work, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora does not address 1 Peter. Barclay distinguishes three terms. First, Barclay uses the word assimilation in reference to the category of social interaction and the adoption of social practices from one's environment. Acculturation then is used in relation to broader cultural features like the use of the same language. Finally, accommodation has to do with the degree to which acculturation takes place, the level of separateness that either is or is not maintained.

In the end, Seland does not find this typology very helpful. He does not find Barclay's distinction between assimilation and acculturation very clear. Further, Barclay's nomenclature does not mesh well with the social scientific use of these terms.

Part 2
And so Seland embarks next on an exploration of recent research in the social sciences on acculturation and assimilation (156-66). His first stop is B. S. Heisler, whose work analyzes the history of research on this topic in three stages. She dubs research up until the late 60's the "classical period." In this period, the process of assimilation was viewed as a one way process ending in complete assimilation.

Heisler dubs the second period the "modern" period, beginning in the seventies. In this period research focused more on conflict, particularly long term conflict, and less on equilibrium. The third period is the "post-modern period," of recent origin (which given the date of this article would be the 1990's). Here we find the expectation of multicultural societies and ethnic pluralisms (158).

Seland mentions several other sources from which one might construct a model of acculturation/assimilation appropriate for 1 Peter. These include the fields of social psychology and communication research. Finally, he draws definitions of acculturation and assimilation from the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (160).

acculturation: "those changes set in motion by the coming together of societies with different cultural traditions."

Seland finds this statement in the article even more helpful: "Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which results [sic] when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups."

assimilation: "a process in which persons of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds come to interact, free of these constraints, in the life of the larger society."

After all this background, Seland ultimately turns to Milton Gordon's 1964 model (from the so called classical period of such research) with a few caveats. The main caveat is a warning that Gordon was wrongly "deterministic" in his sense of inevitability to the process of assimilation. Adjustment of two groups to each other is not the only option.

Gordon's model breaks down several different categories of assimilation:

1. cultural or behavioral assimilation (=acculturation)--fitting in with the host culture in a most basic way (presumably things like learning the language, getting the appropriate documents, etc...)

2. structural assimilation--participating in the clubs, institutions, etc. in large numbers. Gordon believed that once structural assimilation had taken place, all the forms of assimilation below would inevitably follow.

3. marital assimilation (intermarriage)
4. identificational assimilation (identity by way of host society)
5. attitude receptional assimilation (no prejudice toward immigrants)
6. behavior receptional assimilation (no discrimination toward immigrants)
7. civic assimilation (absence of power conflict)

John Berry, in 1980, built on Gordon's categories by posing two questions: 1) does the immigrant group wish to maintain its distinct cultural identity and 2) does the immigrant group wish good relationships with the host culture (163-164)? The result are four basic relationships to the broader culture:

1. If the immigrant group does not want to maintain a distinct identity and does want good relationships with the host culture, the result is assimilation.

2. If the immigrant group does want to maintain a distinct identity yet also wants good relationships with the host culture, the result is integration.

3. If the immigrant group does want to maintain a distinct identity yet does not want good relationships with the host culture, the result is separation.

4. Finally, if the immigrant group does not want to maintain a distinct identity and at the same time does not care about good relationships with the host culture, the result is marginalization.

Part 3
The final part of the chapter then takes all of the preceding processing of social scientific theory and attempts to use it in relation to 1 Peter. Here we arrive at one of Seland's contributions to the Balch/Elliott debate. The question is not really one of assimilation to Greco-Roman culture, as this is the cultural background of the likely Gentile audience (169-170). The question is that of the assimilation of the audience "to the (still developing) Christian system of cult, beliefs, ethos and symbols" (168). So in relation to the host culture, the question is best put as, "How much did he, by his letter, intend his readers to retain of that culture?" (173).

First, Seland argues that they are first generation Christians, "still in need of further acculturation/assimilation into the Christian system" (169). He is surely more correct than not in the light of statements such as we find in 1 Peter 1:14 and 4:3. However, we remember how large an area 1 Peter addresses and are careful not to presume an audience of any monolithic kind. They are primarily Gentile, and it is early enough in the Christian movement for the author to presume that the majority converted from paganism.

They are in a precarious social location. Here Torrey mentions briefly what he discusses more thoroughly in chapter 2. John Elliott is once again his requisite dialog partner. On the one hand, he agrees with Elliott that the phrase "aliens and exiles" in 1 Peter 2:11 does not refer to exile from heaven, as if the audience is on a heavenly pilgrimage (171).

Yet he also finds unconvincing Elliott's sense that they were strangers to these regions even before they converted. We will discuss this thesis in the next post as we review chapter 2. I am also unconvinced of Elliott's thesis and remain puzzled that commentators like Paul Achtemeier and Scot McKnight have followed Elliott on this issue.

At the same time, I'm still struggling with Seland's signature idea that this language in 1 Peter evokes connotations of proselyte language (more when we come to chapter 2). Seland is spot on when it comes to the audience being "proselytes" to Christian Judaism. But I'm having trouble seeing that the specific terms "aliens and exiles" carried those overtones. Indeed, I don't think it is safe at all to assume that the audience, especially in such a vast area, are relatively new converts. ***coming articles

The rest of the section then explores where 1 Peter might fit in relation to John Berry's four categories. Seland immediately dismisses out of hand the options of marginalization and separation. The author wishes the audience to maintain good relationships with the host society.

To address the question of integration versus assimilation, he switches back to Gordon's more detailed delineation of the process of assimilation (173-87). The first stage is acculturation or cultural assimilation in matters such as language. They are to live honorably among the Gentiles (2:12) while following a "new code of honor and shame" (176). Seland thus considers their level of acculturation to be high with some significant modifications.

He does not, however, consider their assimilation to be high in any of Gordon's other categories. The strong sense of harassment and conflict evoked in 1 Peter 2-3 do not reflect that of high assimilation between Christians and their environment structurally, and certainly not in terms of attitude or behavioral reception, let alone civic assimilation. It is assumed that some women will be married to non-believers, but it is unlikely the author would encourage such if it were possible to avoid. And while the audience is not encouraged to withdraw from its societal relations, it is clear that its self-indentification departs quite dramatically from its host environment.

The conclusion, which ironically Seland himself never mentions explicitly, is that the audience would best be typified by "integration" in Berry's typology.

more to come...

Seland Review, Part 2

And now part 2 of my review of Torrey Seland's book Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. I want to go through the first chapter Seland wrote of the material in the book, from 1995, even though it is chapter 3 in the book itself.

Chapter 3: The 'Common Priesthood' of Philo and 1 Peter: A Philonic Reading of 1 Peter 2:5 & 9
This chapter originally appeared in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament in 1995. In this and chapter 4, Torrey experimented with a reader-response approach to 1 Peter, namely, how would an ideal "Philonic reader" understand and react to 1 Peter (79). This is an interesting question and a valid one.

However, Seland's work here raises certain questions. Since he is primarily a scholar of a historical-critical bent, why does he explore this Philonic reader? Does he have some underlying suspicion or inference he wants us to draw from this exercise? This question is particularly poignant when these two chapters are placed in juxtaposition with the other chapters in the book, especially those that attempt to shed light on 1 Peter by way of Philo's writings.

Seland's Philonic reader is "a Jewish reader who is well versed in Philo's works" who "would know the symbolic universe laid out in Philo's works just as well as Philo, if not better" (79). He notes that it has long been suggested that Philo's works may be of relevance for understanding 1 Peter, particularly when it comes to 1 Peter 2:5 (81). He spends the first half of the chapter summarizing Philo's views on the priesthoods of Israel, his views on the temple, the high priest, and the priesthood of Israel.

Throughout Seland's discussions of Philo here and elsewhere in the book, he is keen to deny that Philo "spiritualizes" the biblical text: Philo is "no blunt allegorizer" (82). Seland's concern seems to be to emphasize that Philo did not simply dismiss the literal practices of the biblical text in deference to purely "spiritual" reinterpretations. Thus Philo values the material sacrifices of the Jerusalem Temple (Mig. 92) and indeed the literal temple itself (Spec. 1.67). Seland prefers Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza's term "Kultisierung" or David Hay's "psychologizing" to describe Philo's propensity to move beyond the literal to more symbolic understandings of literal entities and practices (83).

Seland is correct to see a "both-and" approach in Philo to literal and allegorical interpretation. However, we wonder if the biases of a modernist age against allegorical interpretation are not at play here as well. While Philo valued the literal practices of the literal Jerusalem temple, it seems difficult not to conclude that he preferred the deeper meanings of Scripture and its cultic system to the literal ones (cf. Conf. 190; Mos. 2.108). Although it is difficult to say the least to locate Philo's writings in relation to contemporary events, we should not be surprised if Philo at some points took more interest in the literal temple in some of his writings as much because of his political environment as for his more rarified ideology (cf. Spec. 3.1).

Of most relevance for 1 Peter are Philo's characterization of Israel as being "to the whole inhabited world what the priest is to the State" (Spec. 2.162). Seland notes three ways in which Israel as a whole shares a common priesthood (88-91). First, they all keep the Law like priests, whose "chief and most essential quality" is piety (e.g., Mos. 1.66).

Secondly, they worship God as the true, one and only God in a way that the rest of the world does not. They thus provide appropriate worship to God, in a sense, for the rest of the world. The high priest also makes prayers and gives thanks not only for Israel to God, indeed, "not only on the behalf of the whole human race but also for the parts of nature, earth, water, air, fire" (Spec. 1.97; Seland 85-88).

Thirdly, in the rituals of the Passover especially, everyone in Israel acts as priest because the families kill their Passover lambs themselves without the mediation of a Levitical priest. In several respects, therefore, all Israel shares a priesthood beyond the specialized priests of the Levitical system.

The potential relevance of these latter aspects of Philo for 1 Peter 2:5 is obvious: "And you yourselves are built into a spiritual house as stones to be a holy priesthood to offer pleasing spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ" (my translation).

Also of concern in the rest of the chapter is 1 Peter 2:9: "But you are an elect race, a royal house, a priesthood, a holy nation, a people to possess, so that you might proclaim the virtues of the One who called you out of darkness into his astonishing light" (my translation).

Throughout the rest of the chapter (94-113), Torrey addresses the key exegetical issues of these two verses. His discussions are potentially frustrating, for they have an atmosphere of interest in what 1 Peter meant. Yet because the professed goal is to determine how a Philonic reader would read 1 Peter, conclusions are not clearly drawn about the meaning of 1 Peter. In other words, Seland's plane starts off down a historical critical runway with discussions of the original meaning of 1 Peter and literature to that end. But then the movie cuts to a quite different Philonic plane taking off. We are thus left somewhat uncertain about what happened to the other plane.

Is οικοδομεισθε in 1 Peter 2:5 indicative or imperative, or perhaps deliberately ambiguous? A Philonic reader would opt for indicative (94-95). Seland takes no position on what the meaning of 1 Peter is.

Is the οικος a house, a building, or a temple? Seland seems to disagree with John Elliott's arguments that it refers to a "household" rather than to a sanctuary (95-98). Elliott's agenda is to remove the His reasoning comes with his next question: Are the two words βασιλειον ιερατευμα to be taken as "royal priesthood" or as two separate nouns, "King's House, priesthood." With regard to 1 Peter, Seland is officially non-committal, although he rehearses the literature and notes that most take it as "royal priesthood" (98-101).

He does, however, draw a conclusion with regard to a Philonic reader. Philo explicitly interprets Exodus 19:6, which 1 Peter 2:5 echoes, twice: Abr. 56 and Sobr. 66. In these places, Philo takes the two words as two separate nouns, which agrees to that point with Elliott's interpretation of 1 Peter (101).

However, Seland differs strongly with Elliott's attempt to see the "King's House" in Abr. 56 as a reference to a royal palace. Since the king in question is God, Seland argues, the King's House is likely the temple, with the result that Israel is seen as the temple of God (103). Although he makes us to do some work to integrate his comments, Seland's conclusion is clearly that a Philonic reader would see the terms βασιλειον ιερατευμα as a reference to the audience of 1 Peter being a temple and priesthood, with the phrase "spiritual house" refering to them as a temple as well. *** Elliott's concern about anti-Jewish polemic (97)

Another interpretive issue Seland discusses is whether the term "priesthood" refers to Israel collectively or as individuals. Further, does 1 Peter have in mind Israel functioning as priests or is the reference more to a matter of their corporate identity? Seland notes the impact that an individual interpreter's theological tradition has seemed to play in one's conclusions (104).

With regard to a Philonic reader, Seland concludes that Philo would likely take the reference in a corporate sense, with the Jewish nation as a whole serving as priest (105-106; cf. Mos. 2.224). At the same time, all the individuals within Israel act as well, so while the corporate is primary, it entails individual action in the Passover. Seland is once again inexplicit about his conclusion on the question of function, but from his entire discussion it is clear that function is entailed in the common priesthood of Israel for Philo.

The final issue Seland discusses is whether the verb εξαγγειλητε in 1 Peter 2:9 has to do with missionary proclamation or declaration of praise to God (107-113). In his treatment of scholarship on 1 Peter, Seland refers sympathetic to the work of David Balch and J. Coppens that see this as a declaration of praise to God (112). But as his final concern is with a Philonic reader, Seland does not reach a firm conclusion on 1 Peter itself, concluding rather than a Philonic reader would likely side with Balch.

I found this chapter interesting and helpful. However, my main critique stands. I come away from it feeling as if Torrey is tricking me. He hooks me with a historical critical discussion of 1 Peter and discusses many aspects of Philo that would be relevant to drawing a conclusion in relation to the original meaning of 1 Peter. He gives me all the tools at hand to finish the historical-critical discussion.

But then at the last minute, rather than draw such a conclusion, he brings in his Philo ex machina and draws what at that point seems a tangential conclusion to what has been under discussion up to that point.

Reviewing Seland's Studies on 1 Peter, Part 1

I have been reading Torrey Seland's Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. I am writing a book review on it. Blogging (and emailing, much to the frustration of my colleagues at IWU) helps me get brainstorms out of my head and into a form that I can play with (some people do this by talking--at least you have a choice whether to read me or not :-). In any case, I will get some of my thoughts out on Seland's book here now, to polish (and condense) subsequently.

I should perhaps mention that Torrey is from Norway and is known for his work on Philo as well as his interest in Diaspora Judaism, particularly the social world of Diaspora Judaism (5). He has a massive resource page that I have as a regular link below. It is not considered impressive in biblical studies to be able to read another language. Indeed, it is expected that a New Testament scholar be able to read at least Greek, Hebrew, German, and French (OT scholars usually know Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, German, and French, as well as perhaps Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Phoenician).

But it is another thing to be able to speak or write in these languages. I've been to conferences where there are world class English, German, and French scholars at the main table. Typically, the Germans and French can speak English... but the English speak English (to our shame)

All of that is to soften one criticism of Seland's book, namely, that it is filled with minor English infelicities. He would have done well to have a native English speaker proofread the manuscript. After saying that, I will confess to being a hypocrite. I gave a lecture in German once--and laughter was a regular feature of the hour.

This book is primarily a collection of articles and papers Torrey has published and delivered in separate contexts. The result is that these 5 chapters both duplicate material and at the same time are quite disperate in other respects.

Perhaps the signature thesis of the book is that "the author of 1 Peter considers his readers, the Christians in the Diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1), as living a life influenced by social circumstances very much comparable to those experienced in the Diaspora by proselytes to Judaism" (2). This is the focus of chapter 2.

However, this thesis does not really provide the focal organizing principle behind this particular selection of writings. Beside the fact that these are all essays on 1 Peter by Torrey Seland, the more common feature of these chapters is the placement of 1 Peter against the backdrop of that Diaspora Judaism typified by Philo. Seland himself gives three common features of the chapters: 1) the application of insights from social studies of the Graeco-Roman world to 1 Peter, 2) a focus on insights drawn from scholarship on the Jewish Diaspora, and 3) the special reference to Philo in several of the chapters (8).

For the purposes of blogging, I want to run through his chapters primarily in the order they were written rather than the order in which the book presents them. This will help me get a sense of any development or expansion of Seland's thinking. However, I will start with chapter 1, which was written specifically for this collection.

Chapter 1: The Making of 1 Peter in Light of Ancient Graeco-Roman Letterwriting and Distribution
In good historical-critical fashion, Seland seemed compelled to write a chapter for the collection that somewhat sets a context for his probes in the other essays. In keeping with his concrete interests, he approaches this context not from the usual "author, audience, date..." approach. Indeed, he pays very little attention to the question of authorship and audience in the book. Rather, he focuses on the mechanics of how ancient letters were generally produced and distributed.

Before he begins this exploration, he gives his basic thesis: "both the description of Silvanus in 5:12, and the vast areas of destination of the letter (1:1) should be read as indicating that Silvanus was the writer/secretary, but not the courier of the letter" (10). I agree, despite some vocal objections to the contrary.

In keeping with his interest in social scientific matters, Seland explores the typical setting in which literature was produced in the Greco-Roman world. Works were often underwritten by patrons, who would invite them to present portions of the work in process to guests (14). Early readings also took place among close friends. This process certainly involved correction, abbreviation, and expansion, which probably has contributed to some of the variation in the manuscripts of ancient works.

Seland does not find very convincing the suggestion that commercial bookstores of some sort existed before the end of the first century CE. Nor does he think it likely that private individuals had access to the cursus publicus, the official Roman mail system. Individuals would have to be found to write down and deliver an encyclical letter such as 1 Peter.

"[A] letter having only the address of 1 Peter 1:1 would hardly be deliverable" (19). Either the carrier would have to know the precise location of the intended audience or specific locations would need to be given on a separate sheet of papyrus or on the verso of the letter. Once the letter arrived, copies would likely be made at the destination location as well.

Seland then applies this general framework to 1 Peter. He suggests that individuals like Silvanus and Mark, mentioned in the letter's closing, might have been involved in the production of the letter, not least as individuals to whom the author had read and tested the letter before sending (20-22).

The expression, "I have written you through Silvanus" in 5:12 is of particular interest to Seland (and to me). He is aware of some strong sentiment, based on Ignatius' use of this phrase, that it points to Silvanus as the carrier of the letter rather than the amanuensis (22-23). However, I agree with Seland that the evidence in these three instances is far from definitive (25-26): Ignatius to Romans 10:1; Smyrna 12:1; Philadelphia 11:2. See also Polycarp's letter to the Philippians 15, which the book mislabels as Ignatius' letter to Polycarp (25).

It is true that Romans refers to Ephesians, plural, as the ones through whom Ignatius has written. Thus Norbert Brox argues they must be the carriers rather than the writers (26). In Acts 15:23 as well, Judas and Silas are apparently those who deliver the Jerusalem letter to Antioch (27).

However, these two references do not provide a sufficient basis by which to conclude that the expression "write through" only referred to letter carriers. Indeed, even these instances where it seems clear that the individuals involved did carry the letters we cannot rule out the possibility that one of them also served as amanuensis. In the case of Ignatius to the Romans, it is quite possible that one of these Ephesians was the scribe.

Similarly, we have no basis to exclude Judas or Silas as letter writer in Acts 15:23. And the contexts of Ign. Smyrn. 12:1; Phld. 11:2; and Pol. Phil. 15 give no certain indication of exactly what role Bourros and Crescens might have played. Finally, Seland has produced a reference in Eusebius to Clement as writer rather than carrier (Hist. eccl. 4.23.11).

We are thus forced to look at the context of 1 Peter 5:12 for evidence of Silas' role. Here Seland sides with interpreters like Goppelt and Radermacher that the qualifer "I have written briefly," points toward writing as that with which Silvanus helped (28), especially since the letter proceeds to describe the content of what has been written. While I agree with Seland here, his argument is not as strong as his conclusion. This is one of my critques of his book. He has very interesting and plausible ideas, I think, but he often does not argue for them or development nearly as much as they warrant (I'm being a hypocrite here, for this is often said of my first drafts of things too).

The final part of chapter 1 deals with the question of how the letter might have come to its destinations. In particular, he discusses the suggestion that the order of the provinces in 1:1 indicates the path that Silas took when delivering the letter. In the end he concludes that the order of 1 Peter does not likely represent the traveling route of the letter. For one thing, a single letter carrier would have to pass back through Galatia to get to Asia from Cappadocia.

But more importantly, he suggests that the areas covered in the prescript are so wide that a single letter carrier could hardly cover all of them. We suspect that when we arrive at this conclusion, we see one of the main (and somewhat hidden) reasons Seland does not think of Silas as the letter carrier: "as 1 Peter is a circular letter intended for a vast territory, such a mention would make little sense as it is very unlikely that Silvanus could be considered the carrier of the letter to all these regions" (36-37).

One critique I have of this book (I'm a hypocritic again to point out) is that Seland spends a lot of time on some things, but his richest thoughts often appear almost out of nowhere without clear warning or appropriate development. So it is at the end of chapter 1. One of the richest suggestions in this chapter barely shows up in the final paragraph of the chapter body and in the last paragraph of the conclusion:

"I would suggest that a more probable scenario should include several carriers; if a carrier brought the letter from Rome by sea to one of the harbors in Asia Minor, possibly in Pontus, the letter would most probably have been copied there, and then sent further on to other Christian communities in the same areas and then further on" (36).

More to come...

Friday Post #2: Garlington's Review of Piper

I'm sorry, but you're likely to get three posts today (in other words, I'm going Jim West on you today :-).

... but I wanted to point out Don Garlington's review of John Piper's The Future of Justification that came out today in the Review of Biblical Literature. Some of you will know that I extensively reviewed this book in the Fall as well. The entire review is now archived at my kenschenck.com site.

Don (a fellow Dunnite) agrees with Piper on a few things, disagrees with him on others. To me his most memorable critiques have to do with Piper's fearmongering over how dangerous Wright's thinking is and his rejection of trying to read Paul's writings in context in deference to reading Paul the way Augustine and Calvin do. In a memorable line, Don writes, "Once a Copernican revolution has occurred, it will not do to retreat into a pre-Copernican universe."

A Little Night Music... with Chopin

By chance I heard Chopin's Prelude in C Minor last night on the radio on my way back from a class I'm teaching in Indy. I'd suggest they play this piece at my funeral, except that my death would hardly warrant it.

I found it on the web this morning and have enjoyed listening to it in a fairly dim lit office to the gentle patter of rain outside. I could be in Durham again :-)

I feel like the business of knowledge sometimes is so much game playing. Last night I thought of Goethe's Faust and the Romantics, who after exhausting traditional study looked to feeling and the arts for something that transcended their all too human thoughts. Every once and a while in an all too mundane and mediocre life, I'm thankful for those God has graciously gifted with a genius that, for a brief moment, I can lose myself in, become swallowed up by greatness despite my nothingness.

Thanks Chopin for this last night.

Chopin's Prelude in C Minor

P.S. The piano player is Ivan Ilic, who has more downloads here.

Surprised by Coptic

Sarah Smith, a very bright IWU undergrad, is learning Coptic this summer using Bentley Layton's Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic with Exercises & Vocabularies. Watch out April DeConick, here she comes. :-)

Of course these sorts of independent studies have to be registered with a professor, which means that I am trying to learn Coptic on the side too. Thankfully, I know enough languages that it's not too bad. But oh for the brain I had when I was a 20 year old!

Issues of my New Testament Survey Class

I just finished teaching New Testament Survey for May term. Keith Drury has eternally served as a goad to make it relevant to students required to take it who at most will teach a Sunday School class. What does a nursing student need to take away from this class?

One thought we have had is to teach the course around issues. I have always thought that students enjoy my course more once we get to Acts and start to dig into issues. But as I went through the class this time, I kept the question in the back of my mind--how could I pair up the whole New Testament to all kinds of Christian issues both practical and theological.

If you took my NT course, boiled the non-issue material I cover of, what would it look like? I think it could look something like this (following my May term syllabus):

• Why are there so many different interpretations of the Bible?
• How would a non-Christian Jew read the OT differently than a Christian?
• Why are there so many different translations of the Bible?
• What do the things Jesus did say about him?
• What kinds of people do we see in the Parable of the Soils?
• What does the Parable of the Good Samaritan say about Jesus' teaching?
• How does the Parable of the Prodigal Son capture the response to Jesus?
• How did we get the New Testament?
• Why does Jesus hide his identity in Mark?
• Why aren't the Apocrypha in most Protestant Bibles?
• Why did Jesus die on the cross?
• Do Christian Jews have to keep all the OT laws?
• Can a Christian do anything contrary to love of others?
• What should a Christian's attitude be toward money and the poor?
• Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke so similar and John so different?
• Do the gospels give precise or artistic presentations of Jesus' ministry?
• What are the unique contributions of each gospel?
• What was the essence of Jesus message and mission before he went to Jerusalem?
• What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts?
• How important is water baptism? When should it be done and how?
• Was becoming a Christian a change of religion for a first century Jew?
• Was Paul tortured by a guilty conscience before he came to Christ?
• Did the early Christians believe more in resurrection or the immortality of the soul?
• How should a Christian view pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, divorce, and remarriage?
• Should a Christian sue another Christian?
• What are the basic principles to follow when Christians disagree over issues?
• What is the Lord's Supper all about?
• What are tongues and how should they be practiced if at all?
• What arguments does the NT provide for Christ's resurrection?
• Should sin be a normal part of a Christian's life?
• Can a believer "lose" their salvation?
• What does the NT mean when it speaks of predestination?
• How cultural or universal are the household codes of the NT?
• Is it appropriate for women to be in ministry and leadership?
• Are there pseudonymous writings in the NT?
• How frequently is Jesus flat out called God and flat out worshipped in the NT?
• What is the role of works in a Christian's life?
• How do you fit together biblical teaching that seems to conflict with itself?
• How will it all end?

Most of them are surfing the web during class... but those who are both mentally and physically present discuss almost all of these in the course of a semester in my class.

Explanatory Notes on Hebrews 9:15-28

Sorry I'm running behind on these. They may slow down to one a week... they are distracting me from other obligations...
___________
9:15 And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, because his death has come as a redemption for the transgressions in the first covenant, those who have been called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance.
Hebrews fascinatingly has little to say about redemption of new covenant transgression. First those who were living around the time of the turning of the ages were enlightened and became a part of the new covenant. At that time they were redeemed from their past sins, which are thus dubbed "transgressions in the first covenant."

We are reminded of what Paul says in Galatians about the Law being a guardian until the heir comes of age. This imagery for Paul is not exactly the story of "everyman." It is rather the story of what happened in his day with the coming of Christ. The heir has been of age now for 2000 years.

With the language of calling, early Christian language of election peeks out. Such language functioned ex post facto for the early Christians, "derived from after the fact," despite the fact that the language makes predestinarian claims. The language works differently than what it seems to say. You know who is elected by God because they are among the elect.

9:16-17 For where there is a will, it is necessary to bring the death of the one who made the will, for a will becomes valid among the dead, since it does not take effect when the one who made the will is still living.
Hebrews now makes a play on the Greek word for covenant, διαθηκη. The Greek word can also mean a "will" or a "testament." The author thus shifts subtly from one meaning of the word, "covenant," to its meaning as a person's will. In general, a person's will comes into play after that person has died.

9:18 Therefore, the first [covenant] has not been inaugurated without blood,
Although some have tried to find a more subtle connection, the author's point basically amounts to a play on words. Just as a διαθηκη "will" usually goes into effect when the will maker dies, so the new διαθηκη "covenant" was inaugurated with the death of Christ.

9:19 ... for as every commandment of the Law was spoken by Moses to all the people as he took the blood of bulls [and goats] with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both himself, the book, and all the people,
The author's portrayal of the inauguration of the old covenant goes well beyond the biblical account. It shows his allegorizing tendencies. In keeping with the shadowy nature of the Levitical system, the author amalgamates together disparate Levitical rites to pit against the one real atonement provided by Christ. For example, the scarlet wool and hyssop harken from skin cleansing rituals.

None of these is an exact shadow of Christ. Rather, all together they collectively point by example to the reality of Christ's atonement.

9:20-21 ... saying, This is “the blood of the covenant that God commanded you,” and he similarly sprinkled with blood both the tent and all the vessels of service.
It is not unreasonable to think that the author was acquainted with Paul's version of Jesus' words at the Last Supper, found in 1 Corinthians 11:25. There Paul mentions Jesus saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." It is thus possible that he alludes to that meal here.

9:22-23 And almost all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and without shedding blood forgiveness does not happen. Therefore, [it was] necessary for the illustrations to be cleansed with these [sacrifices],
The author here speaks of the necessity of blood under the old covenant, the Law. Under the old covenant, forgiveness required a blood sacrifice. But this comment that forgiveness requires blood shedding is often taken out of context. The big picture of the author's argument is away from the offering of blood.

Unlike what is often made of this comment, the author is not revealing some rigid theology about the necessity of blood. He makes this comment while arguing that the blood of bulls and goats cannot in fact take away sins. He uses the given of the old covenant--its requirement of blood--in order to eliminate blood from the atonement equation. The author's dualistic framework, and the rhetorical dimension of these comments, argues against any real investment in blood per se.

The word "illustrations" here is the same word we earlier translated "examples." It refers to all the various elements of the Levitical sacrificial system. The cleansing to which the author refers is the inaugural cleansing of these things as part of the first covenant.

… but the heavenly [Holies] themselves with better sacrifices than these.
The idea that the heavenly sanctuary might need cleansed is somewhat odd. The suggestion that this is an inauguration rather than a more typical sin cleansing does not eliminate the issue, for the inaugural cleansing still relates to uncleanness.

The best solution is to remember that this entire discussion is somewhat metaphorical. There is no actual structure in heaven that needs cleansed, nor does heaven need cleansed. What needs cleansed are the consciences of human beings. We cannot take the inaugural cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary too literally.

9:24 For Christ did not enter into hand-made Holies, antitypes of the true [Holies], but into heaven itself, not to appear before the face of God for us…
It is certainly possible that heaven itself means more precisely a sanctuary in heaven. But it is more likely that heaven itself is the sanctuary he has in mind, the universe as the true temple of God. This is the tent that the Lord pitched (8:2).

The mention of Christ's appearance before the face of God reminds the audience again of Christ's intercession. We have already suggested that the focus of such intercession has to do with atonement. We find this idea in association with Psalm 110:1 already in Romans 8:34: “It is Christ, the one who died, even more was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us.

9:25-26 … not so that he might offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the Holies yearly with the blood of another, since it would then have been necessary for him to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared once at the consummation of the ages to nullify sin through his sacrifice.
The author's dualism peeks out here as the author seems to associate the need for atonement with the very existence of the created realm. Such a statement is perhaps somewhat hyperbolic, but probably does reflect the fact that the author thinks of the created realm as intrinsically defective.

As in chapter 7, the author reiterates that Christ's offering is a one time offering, unlike Levitical sacrifices. The timeless scope of Christ's sacrifice comes out here more than it has anywhere else. The fact that the author sees himself and his audience living at the "consummation of the ages" reflects that he expects the return of Christ to take place soon. It is thus not surprising that he does not have much to say about the atonement Christ might supply in the future. His sense of atonement is primarily aimed at past sins.

9:27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, an after this is judgment,
Hebrews is sketchy in its view of resurrection. It clearly mentions resurrection as an elementary principle of faith (6:2), and 13:20 speaks of God "bringing up" or "bringing again" Jesus from the dead. However, it is unclear exactly what such resurrection looks like for Hebrews, especially in the light of its pervasive dualism.

Another issue here is the timing of resurrection. Some see Hebrews to say that we experience judgment immediately upon death. One's judgment here might very well relate to your sense of whether Paul develops in this direction in 2 Corinthians 5 as well.

9:28 So also the Christ, who was offered once to bear away the sins of many, will be seen a second time without sin by those who await him for salvation.
The parallelism here might push us toward equating the judgment in 9:27 with the second coming. As mortals die once and then face judgment, so the sacrificial death of Christ is followed by a favorable verdict both for the sinless Christ and for those who trust in him. This salvation comes most literally when these individuals are saved from the coming judgment.

The parallelism of the two verses also seems to equate the offering of Christ with his death. This fact might seem to contradict the offering of Christ's sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary. But we remember that the entire argument is metaphorical--for the author the literal truth is the passage of Christ's eternal spirit into heaven itself. In these two verses the author uses the earlier Christian equation of Christ's death on the cross as the sacrifice.

Faith after High School: Planning for Future Re-entry

American churches are bleeding Chrsitians, it seems. A student in IWU's grad ministry program is doing his final project on the many former teens from his youth group who have lost faith or completely stopped going to church since they graduated from high school. He has several surveys going on surveymonkey.com.

Of course there are some books out there that are in the neighborhood. McLaren has his Everything Must Change, as does Bishop Spong from a different angle.

The student will have some solid research behind his conclusions, but I have some thoughts that I'll throw out here for discussion (the rest of Hebrews nine is underway, but this seemed more immediately interesting).

1. Christian faith seems irrelevant to our kids. I was having a somewhat frustrated conversation with a friend the other day over what Wesleyans should do for a sort of "confirmation" with kids who were baptized as infants. A nearby teen reaction to the conversation was something like what sort of freaks argue over baptism.

Of course my hunch is that just about everything truly meaningful in life is irrelevant to our upper middle class "Christian" teens, many (perhaps most) of whom are doing drugs, having sex, and drinking just like all the other upper middle class kids in their high school. It is not at all just the "lower" end doing these things. The wealthiest high school in a nearby town, full of rich brats, is permeated with drugs and alchohol. It seems like a drunk student from there kills him or herself by running into a tree or something at least once a year.

This bored, pleasure level subsistence is an American problem, not particularly a Christian one. We're a fat nation ripe for being conquered or undergoing crisis because we lack for nothing pleasurable and have no interest in anything lasting. When I lived in England, I was shocked by how stupid Europeans think we are. When I landed back at the Detroit airport and listened to the conversations on a bus leaving the plane, I saw their point. Then after Iraq, we became the scariest nation in the world to them because "stupid" was shooting missiles at everyone.

2. We are a hyper-individualistic culture. Say whatever you think about cults, polygamist Mormons, old fashioned holiness types. But they have a group dynamic that keeps people in the group. The ethos of the current generation of middle class Christian students graduating from college is to blend in with the secular world. And they are blending right into non-existence as Christians. Non-denominational meets non-identity.

3. No "youth lesson" can compete with human sexuality. Our youth pastors can go "blah, blah, blah" about saving sex till marriage or about homosexuality. But it seems that most of this generation are going to have sex anyway. You can't watch them 24/7 and indeed to do so might create a solution more damaging than the problem.

I'm not affirming it. I'm saying I have never been more discouraged about Christians being "holy" than I have become this past year. Maybe I've been blind all these years to what people in the church are really like. My verse of the year is from Joshua 24--"You cannot serve the LORD your God. It will be too hard for you."

I have no great wisdom here (and thankfully no problems with my own family). But I do think that we need to start planning for re-entry into the Christian community once prodigal teens begin to think about marriage and children. I'm not condoning the "testing" years. What I'm advocating is an ethos that somehow projects a bright Christian future when our teens eventually have families.

If we could put a picture in our teens' minds of a day when they raise a Christian family, then they may begin to remember the homeland from some far away country they eventually find themselves in. I have no great wisdom for those for whom homosexuality is the issue, except that the church without question should welcome those who choose to remain celibate. The church will have to wrestle with how to be Christ to those who do not.

But a day will come for most when the competition between sexual drive and church ends. How are we planning today, when they are teens, when they are children, for future re-entry, for those who leave us in the meantime? If we do no planning, we are planning for them to fade away rather than to return. But an ever increasing number, I fear, will leave as soon as they are free.

Values usually are not rational. They are stored deep in a child's subconscious before they can reason. They are triggered powerfully by rituals. Say what you want. "Teaching" is powerless next to this deep magic.

Monday Thoughts: Evangelical Manifesto

The Evangelical Manifesto has hit Christian talk radio. Scot McKnight also blogged on it today. Jim West had earlier had some questions about some signatories.

I wanted to draw the attention of Wesleyan Church leaders to it since we have generally identified ourselves with evangelicalism these last 50 years, since the rise of the neo-evangelicals in the forties.

There are so many lists in this 20 page document that I've decided not to reproduce them. I find nothing in it that I can really object to, although I find so much in it that perhaps it does not identify well what an evangelical is (identity is almost always more a matter of what something is not than what it is). It even distinguishes evangelical from Protestant in a way that, perhaps, a Roman Catholic or Orthodox believer might consider themselves evangelical.

But all in all, I think this is a helpful document and timely. McKnight really has summed it all up for me--what I choose to take away from it. I'll rework his list with an order and content for my own circles:

These are groups who have of late wrongly restricted the boundaries of what an evangelical is:

1. Calvinists like John Piper, the President of Louisville Southern Baptist Seminary, power mongers in the Evangelical Theological Society and so forth have tried to make a strict Calvinism the true evangelicalism, with all others as deviants (like Arminians). Possibly one besetting sin of this group of evangelicals is a failure to move from creed to life, for Jonathan Edwards to be the ideal evangelical rather than people like George Whitefield or Billy Graham.

2. Political conservatives like the Dobson machine cannot limit true evangelicalism to those who would vote the Republican way, voting only in relation to the issue of abortion and gay rights. Possibly one besetting sin of this group of evangelicals is materialism and a reduction of the gospel to "the American way."

3. Progressives like Jim Wallis and Sojourners, who recognize the Christian anemia of those who don't respect all of God's creation, who flagrantly disregard the biblical mandate to take care of the poor and oppressed, run the risk of doing the same thing political conservatives do--to make their political issues the true Christianity, so that someone who doesn't vote Democrat or Green isn't Christian. This will be the temptation of the coming generation who is graduating from college right now.

What do you think?

New Name for my Blog

I've been thinking about changing the name of my blog for some time. I started the blog back in 2004. That was back when I was doing "Deep Christian Thoughts" for IWU's Friday night live. "Schenck Thoughts" seemed like a fair enough name for a blog that, for the most part, was read by IWU students who found out I had a blog.

Over time it's become a bit more serious. I shoot off my mouth a little less than I used to, which of course means the blog is less entertaining. I mostly talk about politics elsewhere these days (I won't say where :-). The days of the Asbury presidential crisis are over, although those entries are still some of the most visited (they helped me not get a job offer too once upon a time).

But since no one knows who "Schenck" is, I've decided on a new name that reflects me and what I blog about just a bit more. I picked "Quadrilateral Thoughts" because it reflects the fact that I come from the Methodist tradition. Like the so called Wesleyan quadrilateral, Scripture is the primary focus of my blogging. Yet Christian tradition, reason, and experience are also essential components of our pursuits on the blog.

Wesley of course never called his hermeneutic a quadrilateral, and I make no claim to be imitating his approach to Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. In particular:

1. It is impossible to say "The Bible says" without reason playing the definitive role in integrating disperate biblical material together.

2. It is impossible to arrive at a Christian understanding of Scripture without allowing Christian tradition to guide that integrating reason.

3. We cannot ultimately divorce the way our reason works from the experience that has formed us as individual and corporate thinkers... and authentic experience of the Holy Spirit is a sure path to truth.

The URL remains kenschenck.blogspot.com. Links under the old name should still work. But perhaps links to this "biblioblog" will invite a tiny bit more interest than "Schenck Thoughts" would.

Theological Hermeneutics Versus Inductive Bible Study

I was reflecting this morning on the difference between inductive Bible study and the latest craze, "theological hermeutics." I'm not at the office to grab some books off the shelf but I associate this movement with names like Kevin Vanhoozer, Joel Green, and Anthony Thiselton, each in their own way.

Vanhoozer has put together The Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Green has started the Two Horizons commentary series with its launching volume, Between Two Horizons, and his own book, Seized by Truth. I am sure those who are further ensconched in this literature could add other books. Mike, if you're out there, I'll go ahead and mention Jeannine Brown's, Scripture as Communication.

I had three thoughts today on the contrast between the theological approach to interpretation and the inductive approach I learned at Asbury Seminary and that is the stuff of the historical critical method. Here they are in brief:

1. Its fundamental method is deductive rather than inductive.
A deductive method primarily proceeds from certain assumptions and then plays out the likely consequences of those assumptions. Certainly theological hermeneutics interacts significantly with the vast data of the biblical text. Yes, certainly there is no "inductive" method to be found that does not proceed from certain assumptions as well--all thinking does.

However, the assumptions from which theological hermeneutics often proceeds are quite large and debatable from an evidentiary perspective (this of course fits the postmodern Zeitgeist and fits with the theological work of James Smith and Nicholas Wolterstorff).

2. It does not aim at the most likely interpretation given the evidence but on the interpretation that best fits with its presuppositions.
In other words, theological hermeneutics does not operate in the same way that ordinary truth pursuit does. It does not gather evidence and generate hypotheses to explain that evidence, hypotheses that are then evaluated on their simplicity, clarity, and ability to account for as much data as possible.

Its logical process is more akin to prejudice, bias, and any -centrism whose primary operating principle derives from unexamined and unprovable assumptions rather than from the most probable reading of the data.

I have given concrete examples of this logic before. From an inductive standpoint, one would not infer that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in its current form. Genesis never mentions him. He is always discussed in the third person rather than the first person throughout the Pentateuch, including the narration of his death. No one following an inductive method would infer that Moses was its author.

However, the traditional and often hotly affirmed Mosaic authorship functions on the basis of theological assumptions derived from a certain reading of the New Testament.

3. Theological hermeneutics is a species of reader response criticism.
The final implication of what we have observed above is that theological hermeneutics is in fact a species of reader response criticism. In the case of Vanhoozer, this is ironic, since he himself puts great impetus on the meaning of Scripture in its original speech-act. He rejects drastically the validity of reader response approaches.

I do not, nor do I think does Joel Green. However, I would strongly affirm that inductive study remains valid and a significant element in the theological process. Most of all, I contend that theological hermeneutics should not be confused with inductive Bible study. Further, while theological hermeneutics may be a more appropriate Christian reading of the biblical texts, we should be clear that it is not the reading likely to tell you what Paul or any biblical author was actually trying to say.

Vanhoozer's method is confused when it tries to equate the meaning of the original speech act of any portion of Scripture with some divine speech act in the whole of Scripture. The first is the stuff of inductive Bible study and the original meaning. The second is valid but it is a reader response approach to the biblical text. Vanhoozer confuses the two.

Richard Bauckham on Monotheism

I'm writing a little piece on Jewish monotheism and so am trying to organize in my mind a host of materials on the subject. Today I thought I would try to get some of my thoughts on Richard Bauckham's work on the subject down on screen.

Bauckham's work on this topic is great because he has left us with a great paper trail that can function as a kind of archaeological dig in which to trace the development of his ideas. If anyone is looking for a topic for a masters thesis in biblical studies, as soon as his summative work on this subject comes out (we've been waiting for 10 years), the circle will be complete. Perhaps it's not in exactly the form he'd planned initially, but alas, we're glad to get it finally.

Here is the paper trail as best I can tell:

"The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity," New Testament Studies 27 (1980-81).

"Jesus, Worship of," Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3 article (1993).

God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Didsbury Lectures, given in 1996, published by Paternoster in 1998, by Eerdmans in 1999). This is the best single resource available at present.

"The Worship of Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11," in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (1998).

"The Throne of God and the Worship of God," in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (given as a paper in 1998, published by Brill in 1999)

"Monotheism and Christology in the Gospel of John," in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 2002.

"Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1," in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (2004)

"Paul's Christology of Divine Identity"

"The Divinity of Jesus," The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, forthcoming from Eerdmans, 2008.

Jesus and the God of Israel, forthcoming book that I think will sum up these different articles and papers in one place.

Here's a very brief summary of the first chapter of God Crucified.

1. There are two main approaches to the question of monotheism and Judaism at the time of Christ:

• The first sees monotheism as an essential characteristic of Judaism of the time.
• The second sees Judaism as blurry at the time, with various angels, exalted patriarchs and such as sharing in God's divinity to varying degrees.

Bauckham comes out squarely in the camp of the first, as the remaining points of the chapter will make clear. I think that Bauckham is largely correct on this score.

2. Bauckham argues that Jews made a strict distinction between God and the creation, with God's unique identity consisting in two aspects:

• God as sole creator. Bauckham argues strongly that Jewish texts did not allow for any other angel or exalted being to take part in the creation.
• God as sole ruler. Bauckham argues strongly that only God could rule and sit on His throne. Angels and exalted figures did not rule for God. God ruled and they served.

I have more questions about Bauckham's construct here and want to read the texts he mentions more carefully. Certainly Yahweh is creator over and against the gods of the other nations. Is there really care on the part of Jewish authors to make sure angels aren't thought to have a role in creation?

I'm also unclear about the hard exclusion of angels from participating in God's rule. Would not the royal traditions of the OT imply that the messiah would participate in God's rule?

3. Bauckham's attempt to move beyond the distinction between "functional" and "ontic" Christologies. A functional Christology would consider language of Christ's divinity as a matter of him functioning in ways that divinity functions. An ontic Christology would argue that Christ's divinity is a matter of him having a divine nature.

Clearly Christianity came to view Christ's divinity as a matter of his nature. It is less clear, however, that the New Testament was already thinking in such categories. Bauckham suggests a new way of thinking about Christ's divinity that thinks of Christ as becoming part of God's unique identity, understood more in terms of what God does rather than what God is.

I have generally found the way Bauckham describes this concept as ambiguous, but that's because Bauckham is half theologian :) (I have the same reaction to Barth). Surprise, surprise, Bauckham had been reading Hans Frei's The Identity of Jesus Christ.

4. Bauckham divides Jewish intermediary figures into two categories:

• angels and exalted patriarchs--these Bauckham excludes from divine roles in creation or rule
• personifications of divine attributes--figures like God's wisdom and word are part of God's identity, and so can participate in God's creation and rule, but they are part of God's identity.

5. The inclusion of Christ within God's identity is

• pre-NT and already has the highest Christology of the NT, since Christ participates in the essential, unique aspects of God's divinity
• unprecedented within Judaism, although anticipated by figures like wisdom and word

6. Update:
Since God Crucified, Bauckham has spoken of three dimensions of Jewish monotheism (slight shift from the "creation" and "rule" aspects that imply "sole worship" or monolatry):

• creational monotheism--God as sole creator
• eschatological monotheism--God will be the final ruler of all
• cultic monotheism--God alone is worthy of worship

7. Pre-evaluation
I wonder if some of these distinctions Bauckham makes are somewhat artificially imposed on Jewish literature. It is quite possible that he is thinking more deeply than I have as yet caught on to.

A particular question I have relates to Bauckham's ideas on Jesus inheriting the divine name YHWH. In the Philippian hymn and in Hebrews 1, Jesus receives these divine names at the point of his exaltation to God's right hand, incorporation into God's eschatological monotheism. Bauckham sees no way then that Jesus cannot then also be included within God's creational monotheism, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

I am sure that this means something coherent in Bauckham's mind, and I will continue to pursue it. My Dunnian realism, however, leaves me wondering what it could mean in the real world for the real Jesus and ex-Pharisee Paul rather than the esoteric halls of post-liberal theology.

Tuesday Hebrews: 9:1-14

9:1 Therefore, on the one hand, the first [covenant] had requirements of worship and a sanctuary of this world.
Hebrews 9:1-10 is the "on the one hand" part of a contrast. The "on the other hand" part begins at 9:11. The first part relates to the "cultic" or sacrificial elements of the first covenant, while the second presents the "sacrificial system" of the new covenant.

The author refers to the sanctuary of the first covenant as a "worldly sanctuary," a "sanctuary of this world." This curious way of describing the earthly tabernacle of Moses in the wilderness probably relates to the author's contrast between the true heaven and the created realm.

9:2 For a tent was constructed—the first one—in which [was located] the lampstand and the table and the presentation of breads, which is called, “Holies.
The author now describes the wilderness tent of Moses in even more curious language. In the description of the earthly structure in 9:1-5, he refers to the first room of the tent as the "first tent" and the second room as the "second tent." The reason will become clear when we get to 9:8-9, where the author interprets this two part structure allegorically as two ages.

9:3-4 And after the second veil a tent that was called, “Holies of Holies"—that had the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant, overlaid with gold on all sides, in which [was located] the golden jar that had the manna and the staff of Aaron that budded and the tablets of the covenant,
This description of the Most Holy Place, the inner sanctum of the wilderness tabernacle, brings further curiosities, such as the reference to a second veil. But the most interesting part of the description is the placement of the altar of incense within the Holy of Holies, rather than in the outer room the Holy Place, as in the Pentateuch. We do have evidence of other Jewish writers placing this altar in the Most Holy Place, so perhaps we should not read special meaning into the author's placement.

9:5 … and above it the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, about which things now is not [the time] to speak in detail.
It is unclear to us exactly what the author means by his final disclaimer. He could mean that many of these items have not been around for some time and so it is difficult to speak of them. This was probably true at the time of Christ. However, our sense is that the author does not wish at this time to explore the allegorical significance of these items, as Philo does in his Allegorical Commentaries. But the author might do so in a different context.

9:6 Now when these things were constructed, the priests entered into the first tent throughout the year to complete their service…
In 9:6-10, the author shifts from describing the structure and contents of the early sanctuary to describe the priestly operations within it, including their allegorical significance. With the wilderness tabernacle constructed, priests entered regularly into the first room of the two part sanctuary.

9:7 … but into the second [tent] the high priest alone entered once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and the sins of the people committed in ignorance,
By contrast, only once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, did the high priest alone enter into the inner sanctum of the sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. The author, using his curious language, refers to this second room as the second "tent."

The author has mentioned more than once that the earthly high priests, unlike Christ, had to offer blood for themselves as well as for the people. Since Christ was without sin, he of course did not have to offer sacrifices for his own "weaknesses."

In its context in Numbers, "sins committed in ignorance" refered to the fact that atonement was strictly provided for unintentional sins rather than for "sins with a high hand," sins committed intentionally and with full knowledge of what one was doing. In the context of Hebrews, however, the author does not likely refer to sins committed unintentionally. Rather, he refers to sins before one came to a "knowledge of the truth" (e.g., 10:26) and become enlightened (e.g., 6:2).

The knowledge of the truth is the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God. It likely implies the whole truth about Christ, including his second coming. By using language of "sins committed in ignorance," the author hints that Christ's atonement was not intended for sins committed after one comes to the truth (cf. 10:26).

9:8-9 … the Holy Spirit making this clear: the way of the Holies has not yet appeared while the first tent still has standing, which is a parable for this present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered that are not able to perfect the worshipper in conscience…
The author now begins to draw his allegorical conclusion based on the structure and workings of the wilderness tabernacle. The earthly sanctuary had two parts. The priests entered the first throughout the year, but only the high priest had access to the Holy of Holies once a year.

So in the current age, never ending sacrifices are offered, just as priests offer sacrifices continually in the "first tent," the outer room of the wilderness sanctuary. This indicates that as long as the first tent has status, the first covenant, the way into God's presence is not yet available. The person that offers the sacrifice cannot have their sins taken away.

The author is pointing to an interpretation of the two part sanctuary as an allegory for the two covenants. The first covenant involved continuous cultic activity. The second is a one time, once and for all sacrifice. When the first covenant is taken away, when the first tent is taken away, then only the second tent will stand, the new covenant with the one time sacrifice of Christ. And perhaps, once the created realm, the outer tent is removed, only the unshakeable heaven will remain.

9:10 … only on the basis of foods and drinks and various washings, requirements of flesh imposed until the time of reformation.
The Levitical system did not truly cleanse sins. The person was left with a consciousness of still having them. One's conscience was thus not "perfected." The cleansing of the first covenant was "superficial" and only extended to the washing of one's flesh. It awaited the time of "reformation" when sins would truly be taken away.

9:11 But Christ, on the other hand, who arose as a high priest of good things that have come into existence,
This statement is parallel to 10:1, which thinks of the Law as a shadow of good things to come. But in Christ the good things have already come to be, namely true atonement.

9:11-12 ...through the greater and more perfect tent, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation nor through the blood of bulls and goats, but through his own blood, he entered into the Holies once and for all having found an eternal service.
The author here structures his thought chiastically. The two middle lines follow a similar pattern, as do the first and last.

a. through the greater and more perfect tent,
b. not made with hands, that is, not of this creation
b'. nor through the blood of bulls and goats
a'. but through his own blood…

The greater and more perfect tent, in our opinion, is heaven itself. The author does not have some literal structure in heaven in view. Christ passed through the skies in his ascension, and the author can think of this passage as the passage through the heavenly sanctuary.

The train of thought "through the greater and more tent ... he entered into the Holies" seems contradictory at first. Are these not the same thing? Two possibilities suggest themselves.

The first is that we should take the first statement to say that "by way of the greater and more perfect tent ... he entered." But it is also possible that the tension arises from the fact that the heavenly tent is, after all, a metaphor for heaven itself. We should not be surprised if tensions arise in the course of argument. After all, these two comments are somewhat removed from each other.

9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and sprinkling the ashes of a red heifer sanctified those who had become unclean toward the cleansing of the flesh,
In keeping with the shadowy nature of the Law, chapter 9 amalgamates several diverse types of Old Testament sacrifice. Here he mentions the red heifer cleansing of skin diseases. In a moment he will mention scarlet wool and hyssop for similar cleansings. All of these diverse cultic rites find their singular reality in the single sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifices of the old covenant did not take away sin but only provided a bodily cleansing.

9:14 ... [then] how much more will the blood of Christ—who through an eternal spirit offered himself blameless to God—cleanse our conscience from dead works to worship the living God.
By contrast, the sacrifice of Christ cleanses a person's consciousness of sins, here described as "dead works" or, perhaps, "works that result in death." By contrast, Christ's priesthood enables us to worship the living God. Christ's sacrifice was a "living" work rather than a dead one.

The author's focus on Jesus' blood is perhaps misleading. Indeed, despite the fact that the author says that "without blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (9:22), he makes these comments in order to do away with the physical. No doubt he would agree with Paul that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50).

So it is significant to notice that when it comes down to Christ's entrance into heaven, the author does not say that Christ brought his blood into heaven. Indeed, such a view is impossible from the author's understanding of the world. Rather, it is ultimately "through an eternal spirit" that he offers himself to God. This is yet another allusion to Christ's "indestructible life" that was the key characteristic of his high priesthood (7:16).

Monday Thoughts: Historical Jesus in Brief

When I am done with the Synoptic Gospels in New Testament Survey, I stop and take stock of the essence of Jesus mission and message. Here is the outline I present at this point of my New Testament Survey courses. Of course what I write below goes in a somewhat different direction from anything I say in class, approaching the question from a more "historical" perspective.

1. Jesus preached the coming of the kingdom of God.
Mark features the coming of the kingdom of God as Jesus' central message. This is an apocalyptic message with political overtones. In its Jewish context it would have implied the restoration of Israel as a nation and likely the arrival of a messianic king.

This doesn't surprise us as John the Baptist placed himself at the location of Joshua's entrance into Canaan. Motifs of the return of Israel from captivity seem close at hand. Indeed, the themes of gospel, rule of God, and return from captivity all come together in Isaiah 52:7.

2. Jesus cast out demons as part of that arrival.
The Synoptics all make it clear that part of Jesus' activity in the Galilee included casting out demons. We should relate this important part of what Jesus did to the coming of the kingdom of God. The coming of the kingdom for Jesus was not just political but it was spiritual. The demons he cast out were a demonstration that the kingdom of God was arriving (cf. Luke 11:20). Jesus was the "Normandy invasion" of the kingdom, kicking Satan "out of Dodge" in preparation for the coming rule of the LORD.

When we think of the Jewish groups to which such an emphasis has greatest affinities, the Essenes come to mind, although other aspects of Jesus' ministry diverged drastically from them. It is nevertheless possibly significant that some aspects of John the Baptist also seem similar to them.

3. Jesus targeted the lost sheep of Israel in Galilee.
The narrow scope of Jesus' activity is striking. He seems to have spent little time ministering outside of Galilee. Indeed, he seems to have spent most of his time around the villages north of the Sea of Galilee: Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin.

He interacted minimally with "the righteous" but focused rather on the outcasts of Israel. The amount of space given to the Pharisees in the Gospels seems disproportionately large in comparison to how much time Jesus actually spent interacting with them--they do not seem to have had much of a permanent presence outside of Jerusalem.

We can see this ministry as an extension of John the Baptist's call to repentance in preparation for the coming of the kingdom. Jesus was calling all of Israel to be part of the restored people of God.

The gospel of Luke perhaps gives us a somewhat abstracted perspective on this mission. Its focus on Jesus ministry to the poor, widows, orphans, the oppressed, the maimed, the physically "defective" was no doubt in context a ministry to these members in Israel. Things like purity laws and other parts of the Law paled in importance next to the importance that all Israel be a part of the renewed people of God. We wonder how the Galilean milieu fostered less focus on minute particulars of the Mosaic law.

Jesus' healing ministry was likely part of the restoration of God's people to wholeness.

4. Jesus preached love of neighbor and enemy.
We wonder if this focus of Jesus' teaching is also somewhat abstracted from our current perspective. Love of neighbor in context surely related first to the love of all who are within Israel, whoever they might be.

But it also makes sense that Jesus saw Israel as the light to the nations as well, that he expected the Gentiles also to flow to the God of Israel. Perhaps we should hear in Jesus' admonition to love one's enemies an admonition in context to hope that the nations outside of Israel would also flock to Israel's God.

5. Jesus saw himself, including his death, as instrumental in the coming of the kingdom.
Of the things we have said thus far, this point is the most debated. The Gospel of Mark clearly distances Jesus from conventional understandings of a military messiah. On the other hand, Jesus appoints twelve disciples to symbolize the restoration of Israel. Yet he is not one of the twelve. Could this mean that he is the king over the 12 tribes?

The synoptics also indicate that Jesus refered to himself as the "Son of Man." It is an ambiguous phrase about which some Jewish speculation existed at the time of Christ. It could indicate that Jesus saw himself as the king who would rule over nations as in Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch. Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem could also indicate a self-understanding of himself as the king.

The last supper tradition, found earliest in 1 Corinthians 11, points toward an understanding on the part of Jesus that he was about to die for Israel. The Corinthians know of Peter and Jerusalem, so it is highly unlikely that Paul is making this tradition up. It is a strong indication that Jesus did in fact anticipate his death and did see it as instrumental in the restoration of Israel.
__________
I realize that most of my readers will find most of this post as obvious and, indeed, as vast understatement. I have written it "following the rules" of historical research, which of course does not take us nearly as far as reading the gospels through the eyes of faith.

Sunday Hebrews: Explanatory Notes on Hebrews 8

I thought that I might do collective preaching notes for Hebrews 7:1-10:18. I may change my mind but at first thought the basic point of this section seems mostly to apply the same way.
________________
8:1 Now the chief thing in the things being said is that we have such a high priest, who sat on the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heavens…
The author now helpfully tells us what the main take away from his discussion of Melchizedek is. We have a high priest. The order of Melchizedek is not some abstract interest of the author. His argument leads to one basic point--the audience has a high priest who has definitively taken care of their atonement once and for all.

The mention of God's right hand returns us to Psalm 110:1 and the fact that Christ sits at God's right hand with his mission accomplished. We have seen the messianic implications of this verse in Hebrews 1. The author has associated Christ's exaltation and his high priesthood as well but has not shown exactly what the connection is.

8:2 … a minister of the Holies and of the true tent, which the Lord pitched, not a human.
Here is the connection. The universe is the true sanctuary of God, the sanctuary that He made rather than one that Moses or human hands made. When Christ ascended to heaven, he entered into the true tent. And when he sat at God's right hand, he had entered into the true Most Holy Place.

This is the author's great high priestly metaphor. Christ's ascension through the heavens and seating at God's right hand in the highest heaven is seen as Christ's entrance into the true sanctuary as a priest after the highest order. As the author has shown the superiority of Christ's priesthood, in 8:1-10:18 the author will show the superiority of his sacrifice and the sanctuary in which he offers it.

8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore, it is necessary [for him] to have something that he might offer…
We have seen this basic function of a high priest back in 5:1. The author now will consider what kind of a sacrifice it is that Christ has offered in contrast to the sacrifices of Levitical priests.

8:4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are [already] those who offer the gifts according to the Law,
Christ was not a priest in the normal sense of that word. He did not have a sanctuary in which he offered sacrifices to a god, nor by the standards of the Law could he be considered a priest. The author has already argued in chapter 7 that the author was from the tribe of Judah, whose descendants have never served a Jewish altar according to the Law.

But the author will now develop more fully another dimension of this priestly contrast. Levitical priests not only function temporarily until they die. They function on earth. The superiority of Christ's priesthood lies in part due to the fact that he is a heavenly high priest.

8:5 … who serve the heavenlies by example and shadow,
This verse is repeatedly mistranslated. In particular, the word example is often translated "copy" because of the quasi-Platonic feel of Hebrews' language in this central section. However, we cannot find a single instance in all extant Greek literature where this particular word is used of a Platonic copy. We can find a few obs