If the truth won’t set us free

Posted on by
Reply

However much emergent or evangelical or whatever forms of Christianity flee from “religion”, they find it staring back at them in the mirror. Faith doesn’t exist in a vacuum; all communities produce rituals, customs and cultural accoutrements that make them “religious” as well as believing. Claiming somehow to transcend the inevitable consequences of being human and in community, and to have attained a purity of spirituality or doctrine or practice that others cannot, is an old and familiar heresy. The fact that “religion” is a marketing liability won’t matter in the end – if the truth won’t set us free, nothing else will.

- Andrew McGowan
Andrew’s Version

The Monk is not an Anachronism

Posted on by
Reply

“The monk is not an anachronism, nor is The Rule of St. Benedict antique and irrelevant. It is modern life, rather, that is not in accord with the fundamental needs of the human heart. From the viewpoint of the human soul, our modern style of living is the irrelevancy. By not enjoying a genuine common life and by not giving ourselves a degree of contemplation, we wound our need for emotional quiet and meaning. And so it is appropriate to return to this ancient sketch of an alternative life, to reread it and discuss it, and, with imagination and reflection, bring its spirit into the workplace, the home, and the city, where it could transform a culture of anxiety into a community of peace and mutual regard.”

- Thomas Moore, “Preface to the Vintage Spiritual Classics Edition“, The Rule of St. Benedict, xxv.

[If this interests you, please join us this semester on Wednesday nights at All Souls Anglican Church, Wheaton, IL. We start with soup and fellowship at 6:00p.]

The Greatest Benefectors of Mankind

Posted on by
Reply

“The greatest benefactors of mankind are unsung and unknown–the inventor of the wheel, the deviser of the alphabet. Among their number we should place the inventor of the codex” (p. 1).

- Eric G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2011; orig. ed., 1977).

For more on this book, see this post by Larry Hurtado

“You Have Said So”

Posted on by
Reply

For the past two Sundays the Adult Education hour at our church has been lead by Jennifer Merck who has led us through the meaning of ‘Messiah’ both in the Old Testament and in the New. One of the texts we looked at this Sunday morning was Luke 23:3 and its parallels, and a comment was made concerning Jesus’ response to Pilate’s question and the nature of his answer. All three Synoptic Gospels record the same question, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “Are you the king of the Jews” (Matt 27:11; Mark 15:12; Luke 23:3), and all three Synoptic Gospels likewise record the same response by Jesus, σὺ λέγεις, which is translated differently in various English versions. As a brief sampling, the NASB says, “It is as you say;” the ESV, “You have said so;” the NIV, “Yes, it is as you say;” the NET, “You say so;” and the NLT, “You have said it.” It is often assumed by most readers that Jesus’ reply is a roundabout way of saying Yes, as the NASB and the NIV clearly imply, but commentators are not so certain.

There are certain grammatical and linguistic arguments to be made both for both sides of the argument, and there is also room for saying, with Nolland, that it not as though “Jesus quite said ‘yes’. But his manner of equivocating was closer to a ‘yes’ than a ‘no’” (Matthew, NIGTC, 1162). One of the more obvious arguments, however, for reading Jesus’ words as a negative response is the context. This is especially true in Luke, and less so in Mark and Matthew respectively. According to Luke, after Jesus’ response, Pilate turned to the chief priests and the crowds and said, “I find no guilt in this man” (23:4). The Jewish leaders brought Jesus before Pilate specifically on the accusations that he was telling people not to pay taxes to the Roman government and that he claimed to be “the Messiah, a king” (23:1). Claiming to be a king, especially a king in place of Caesar, was a crime punishable by death, and this was exactly the charged under which Jesus was crucified (Luke 23:28). A similar scene is described in Acts 17:6-7, when Jason and some of the brothers and sisters in Thessalonica are brought before the local authorities on the charge that “they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (17:7). One could not say that there was another king than Caesar, much less claim to be that king when asked point blank by Caesar’s representative, and be found not guilty. The context, therefore, seems to suggest that Jesus’ response is either negative or at least undetermined (something like the NET’s, “you say so”, implying that Jesus refused to answer directly).

It is possible that author of the Gospel of John is aware of this tension in the synoptic tradition for he records a significantly longer response by Jesus that allows Jesus to respond affirmatively while still making sense of Pilate’s ‘not guilty’ declaration. The short scene in the Synoptic Gospels has been replaced by a fuller version:

“So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.” (John 18:33–38 ESVp)

John appears to attempt to resolve the tension by qualifying Jesus’ response with language that would negate an implied threat to Caesar’s kingship and kingdom. “My kingdom is not of (really, ‘from’) this world,” Jesus says in John, and therefore it would appear to be no threat to Caesar. In this context, Pilate’s confession of Jesus’ innocence begins to make more sense.

Setting aside the question of historicity when comparing Johannine accounts with parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels, does John’s depiction of this scene suggest a certain reading of the synoptic parallels? If so, then if we are to read with John, we must read Jesus’ response as an affirmative response and find another reason for Pilate’s verdict of innocence. Some might be willing to just import John’s account into the Synoptic Gospels, but I am not. The most plausible way to understand the version in the Synoptic Gospels, historically and in relation to John, is to say that although Jesus did response affirmatively to Pilate’s question, Pilate simply did not consider him a viable threat. Pilate may have believed that Jesus thought he was the king of the Jews, but with no army, and even his own people rejecting him, what harm could he be? This, of course, raises the topics of politics and power and the Gospels inversion of these systems, but that will have to wait for another post.

Did the Bereans Examine the Scriptures?

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve just started reading the latest issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature and I thought it might be worthwhile to myself and others to briefly summarize a few of the articles that caught my eye, and perhaps even make a few comments in response. The one I’d like to start with today is Roy E. Ciampa, “‘Examined the Scriptures?’ The Meaning of ἀνακρίνοντες τὰς γραφάς in Acts 17:11″, JBL 130 (2011): 527-541.

According to the traditional reading of Acts 17:11, the author of Acts commends the Bereans (Ciampa says ‘Beroeans’) for ‘examining the Scriptures’ to confirm the truthfulness of Paul’s teaching. As Ciampa notes, this reading has implications for questions about the literacy rates among Paul’s audience and their access to manuscripts, whether in the synagogue or early churches. Ciampa’s argument is that the traditional reading, which goes back as far as Chrysostom and the Vulgate as Ciampa shows, is based on a false understanding of the Greek verb  ἀνακρίνω. According to Ciampa, “When used with an impersonal object in a nonjudicial setting (as in Acts 17:11), the verb means to ask [someone] questions about the direct object” (528). In the case of Acts 17:11, because Paul is the authoritative teacher it is implied that he is the someone being asked. Ciampa provides evidence for this meaning of ἀνακρίνω with an impersonal object from the ancient Greek lyric poet Pindar, Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens, Callimachus’s Iambi, Nymphodorus of Syracuse’s Fragmenta, Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, 1 Cor 2:15, and Papias 2.4 (Hist. eccl. 3.39.5). For the sake of thoroughness, Ciampa also surveys not only the use of ἀνακρίνω with an impersonal object in judicial contests, but he also provides a history of interpretation to try and explain how we arrived at the traditional reading of this verse.

The results of Ciampa’s argument suggest strongly that the reason for the Bereans commendation is much different than readers have commonly assumed. Rather than being commended for searching the scriptures to see if they supported Paul’s teaching, which presumes a certain ease of access to the relevant manuscripts and the ability to read, they are in fact commended for “asking [Paul] questions about the Scriptures every day to see if these things were true” (Ciampa’s proposed translation of Acts 17:11). It appears therefore that the commended community “treated Paul as a highly respected rabbi or teacher of Scripture” and it “suggests that the Beroeans were thought to have (or are portrayed as having) evaluated [Paul's] teaching based on his answers to the questions they put to him in light of their own prior knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures” (540).

As to the questions of literacy and access to manuscripts among Paul’s audience (the picture has moved a bit, of course, from the audience of Paul’s epistles to the audience of Paul’s teaching and preaching as portrayed in Acts), Ciampa concludes on p. 541,

Acts 17:11 does not say or indicate that the Beroeans were studying scriptural texts on a daily basis but that they were asking Paul questions about the Scriptures and how his teaching cohered with what they knew about them. If the synagogue or some socially elite members of the synagogue had a large collection of biblical scrolls (and members capable of reading and studying them), they may have studied them in light of what Paul was saying and formulated their questions to Paul in a way that was more directly informed by their study of Scripture. However, the way Luke depicts the Beroeans’ behavior would also be perfectly consistent with a scenario according to which they were mainly illiterate and had little direct access to the Scriptures. In that case the ancient reader of Acts would understand that they were simply asking Paul questions about the Scriptures based on the knowledge they had gained through their exposure to previous preachers and teachers and synagogue readings.

I for one find Ciampa’s lexical study convincing, although I would want to look further into his distinction between ἀνακρίνω with impersonal objects and personal objects. Back when I was young I would frequently hear of the mighty Bereans who wouldn’t accept a new teaching, even from an authority like Paul, without personally going back and studying the scriptures for themselves. I even vaguely recall rallying cries to “Be Berean!”, and I’m sure I’m not alone. It’s only now that I realize that the Bereans were being upheld not just as good Christians, but also as good Protestants. That’s a different topic though, and I’ll leave it at that.

What do you think of Ciampa’s argument? Does it change how you understand what is taking place in this verse?

Becoming What We Worship

Posted on by
3

One of today’s psalms for evening prayer was Psalm 135. The psalm begins with a call to praise because “the Lord has chosen Jacob for himself and Israel for his own possession” (135:4). The psalmist proceeds by recounting the supremacy of God above all other gods (135:5), the sovereign will of God over heaven and earth (135:6-7), and his power in delivering his people from Egypt and bringing them into the promised land (135:8-12). The psalmist then shifts from the third-person to the second. He proclaims to God that his name will be remembered forever because “the Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants” (135:14). Given what proceeds, the subsequent section of the psalm may strike some readers as odd. Take a look at verses 15-17:

(15) The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, •
the work of human hands.

(16) They have mouths, but cannot speak; •
eyes have they, but cannot see;

(17) They have ears, but cannot hear; •
neither is there any breath in their mouths.

These four verses indicate that this psalms isn’t just about God, who he is and what he has done, but rather it describes God as praiseworthy precisely in comparison to idols. The God of Israel has made them his by sovereign choice; he is supreme, sovereign, and powerful to save. By contrast idols are statues made by human hands. They have mouths but cannot speak. They have eyes but cannot see. They have ears but cannot hear, and there is no life in them. But here is the truly troublesome part:

(18) Those who make them shall become like them, •
and so will all who put their trust in them.

According to the psalmist, those who put their trust in idols become like the idols they worship. That is to say, idolatry changes our perception of reality. It affects our ability to properly see, hear, and speak about the world created, ruled, and saved by Israel’s God. The psalmists use of this language here, given what he has said earlier in the psalm strongly suggests that this psalm is a reflection on the covenantal language of Deuteronomy 29 and is therefore not surprising. There Moses reminds the people of all that God has done for them in delivering them from Egypt and leading them through the wilderness, but then he says, “But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear” (29:4). Moses continues and explicitly mentions idols made “of wood and stone, of silver and gold” (29:17; cf. Ps 135:15) and warns of the disastrous consequences of following after idols rather then the God of the covenant.

This same imagery occurs again in the commission of the prophet Isaiah in ch. 6 of the book that bears his name. There the prophet is commissioned to say to the people, “Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand” (6:9). The divine commission continues in v. 10: “Make the mind of this people dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed.” [We will set aside the issues raised by God's commission of a prophet to harden the hearts of his people.]

This biblical-theological background also stands behind Matt 13:9 (“He who has ears, let him hear.”) and the other similar passages in the Gospels (Matt 13:43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35), as well as the repeated refrain through the letters to the seven churches in Revelation(2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; see also 13:9). In fact, only a few verses after Matt 13:9, Jesus directly refers to the commission of Isaiah and applies it to his contemporary generation (13:15-16). Jesus then says, “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear” (13:17).

I would suggest that the practical point of all this is that whatever idols we have in our life can (perhaps ‘will’) disorient our perception of this world. We live in a world created, sustained, and ruled by the creator God who has chosen us in his Messiah to be his agents of new creation, and idols, anything that receives explicit or implicit worship in our lives apart from the creating and electing God, keep us from that task. They keep us from having ears and eyes and minds that correctly perceive the world and what God is doing in it, and they keep us from having tongues that speak rightly about the world and confess God’s truth.

“Those who make [idols] shall become like them, and so will all who put their trust in them.” It might be worthwhile to reflect this evening  on the idols we have erected in our own lives and to ask how we have become like them, but we should also thank God that in Christ we are blessed, for in him we may have eyes that rightly see and ears that rightly hear.

[For the sake of honesty and clarity, I want to add that I was a student of G. K. Beale at Wheaton College, and much, if not all, of what I wrote above is stuck in my memory from his class lectures. He has published a fuller treatment of this subject, and that deserves noting as well: We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry.]

Christological Problems

Posted on by
12

Let me briefly state several propositions that create numerous Christological problems.

  1. God the Son is a personal, acting agent who is an essential part of the Trinity. He has all the properties necessary and sufficient for divinity. He is a personal agent, but not a human person.
  2. God the Son is not a human person, essentially. His human nature is not essential to his being; that is, he would have remained God the Son if he did not become incarnate in Christ.
  3. Jesus is a human person. Typically, this is taken to mean that the human nature of Jesus is a concrete particular that is composed of a body and soul. Of course, this concrete particular is anhypostasis, meaning that is lacks personhood until is it made enhypostasis by God the Son.
  4. God the Son is not identical to Jesus Christ (given Leibniz’s Law), for there is at least one essential property that Jesus has which God the Son lacks (e.g., a human body/soul).
  5. Since God is, traditionally at least, impassible and immutable, he cannot undergo any change. Therefore, when we say that God the Son became flesh, we do not mean that he was transformed into flesh. In other words, God the Son did not become Jesus Christ in any way that would entail the divestment of any of his essential properties.
  6. Jesus Christ is ‘composed’ of The Son + body/soul composite.
  7. The human nature of Jesus, then, is an ‘instrument’ (perhaps like a diver’s suit) that allows the Son to fully participate in human life.
  8. Yet, with Chalcedon, we agree that there are not two persons in Jesus, so how are we to proceed? Which proposition (if any) needs modifying? Or, what propositions need added?

Nintendo Liturgy

Posted on by
5

My journey into Anglicanism was largely influenced by the the liturgy. Over the last few years spent as an Anglican, I have begun to appreciate more and more what we do every week. The liturgy draws us through repentance and forgiveness, sorrow and rejoicing, bringing us to confession and celebration. Something about how it is able to both help me acknowledge my sin before God and his grace given for me stirs my heart.

And so, the only reasonable response for me was to recreate a musical rendering of what I do every Sunday morning in my auditory  language of my heart: the sounds of an Original Nintendo Gameboy.

 

 

If you are interested, here are some notes about what part of the service is going on as you listen (whenever I used non-original music, I noted it in brackets):

 

I. Liturgy of the Word

Prepare for worship [Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing] (0:00)
Hear and respond to God’s commandments (0:23)
Pray the weekly Collect (0:39)
Proclaim and respond to God’s Word [Alleluia] (1:08)
Pray fo the church and the world (1:38)
Confession of Sin and pronouncement of forgiveness (1:53)

 

II. Liturgy of the Sacrament

Praise God for his goodness [Doxology - Old 100th] (2:39)
Table is prepared (3:06)

II.a Eucharistic consecration:
Eucharistic Prayer (3:36)
[Sanctus] (3:59)
Prayers of Consecration (4:36)
[Lord's Prayer] (5:10)
Invitation to Communion (5:25)
Agnus Dei (5:33)

Congregation comes to the table(5:58)
Responding with Thanksgiving (6:44)
Depart (6:55)