Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’

Stage 1. Post 2: What Saint Paul Really Said

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

So, here we are — the 2nd post of Stage 1. One book down. Three to go. See you at the end! If you’d like to follow along through all the stages, please feel free to follow me on Twitter or subscribe to this RSS. Enjoy!

What makes What Saint Paul Really Said so praiseworthy?

Does Paul ever annoy you? Yes? Me too. I have to say that I prefer the Gospels over the Pauline epistles, and I have a love-hate relationship with Paul. However, I am getting beyond that thanks to N.T. Wright. Above all the criticism and even amidst it, What Saint Paul Really Said is praiseworthy. N.T. Wright (NTW) deserves a great more amount of praise from fellow evangelicals than he has received. From my estimation, he has taken the scholarly discussion of Paul from being a solely “mainline” exercise and has put evangelicals on the map with this book.

First, NTW shows that Paul properly put Jesus within Jewish monotheism. At the time of Paul, the Jews had developed a more flexible definition of YHWH. They used “five language-sets…Wisdom, Torah, Spirit, Word and Shekinah…Sometimes some of these are closely identified with each other, as in Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) 24″ (p. 64). Wright does well to point out that Paul remains this type of “monotheist.” The apostle did not see himself as creating a new religion, but he believed he was firmly rooted within that tradition. NTW points out a number of ways that this was so. However, I would like to point out two ways. First, Paul reshapes the Shema (”Here, O Israel, the LORD our God, he is one…) around the person of Jesus. NTW shows it as follows:

The Lord our God            One God — the Father…
The Lord is One              One Lord — Jesus Christ…
(Dt. 6:4)                            (1 Cor. 8:6)

Wright reflects on this,

The whole argument of the chapter [1 Cor. 8] hinges precisely

What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

on [Paul] being a Jewish-style monotheist, over against pagan polytheism; and, as a the lynchpin of the argument, he has quoted the most central and holy confession of that monotheism and has placed Jesus firmly in the middle of it (pp. 66-67; emphasis original).

Second, Paul’s Christology in Philippians 2. NTW rephrases what Paul is saying,

(1) Jesus was truly in the form of God, that is, he was equal with God. But (2) he did not regard this divine equality as something to exploit (watch out for different translations that get this vital point wrong). Instead, Paul says, (3) he [Jesus] offered the true interpretation of what it meant to be equal with God: he became human, and died under the weight of the sin of the world, obedient to the divine saving plan (p. 68).

Paul also includes the Spirit within Jewish monotheism. Thus, God is three and one at the same time. This may seem odd, but Wright explains,

“Paul does not solve the puzzle of how God can be three and one at the same time. But, for him, this is what the word God actually means…he uses exactly those language systems which some parts of Judaism had developed for speaking, within monotheism, of the ways in which this one God acted within the world. Paul remains completely a Jewish-style monotheist” (p. 74).

Many have tried to argue that Paul had invented Christianity (e.g., A.N. Wilson who NTW argues against in the last chapter). However, NTW shows that this is not the case–that Paul was clearly following in the line of Jesus. He explains,

It should be clear from all this that if Paul had simply trotted out, parrot-fashion, every line of Jesus’ teaching…he would not be endorsing Jesus…He would be denying him. Someone who copies what a would-be Messiah does is himself trying to be a Messiah; which means denying the earlier claim (p. 180-81).

This is an excellent point! It was eye-opening to me. I wasn’t sure how to ever address the question of dis/continuity between Jesus and Paul, but, after reading the book, I believe NTW says it best.

However excellent NTW’s points may be and however academic he may be, NTW supplies a pastoral emphasis near the end of his book. Paul emphasizes that because of the work of Jesus there is a renewed humanity, that is, there is a true way of being human. Due to this, we see that Wright desires his readers to apply what they have heard him say. NTW spends time to point out that a renewed humanity centers around the “true worship of the one true God” (p. 136). A renewed humanity lives in light of resurrection (p. 140). A renewed humanity is a transformed humanity, which calls us to holiness (p. 142). This renewed humanity genuinely overflows with love (p. 145). And the renewed humanity sees Jesus as King and all other “kings” as parodies and then goes out in mission to the rest of the world; as Wright says of Paul, “He knows that what he is doing is simply part of a cosmic movement, beginning with the resurrection of Jesus and ending with the renewal of all things…The Jewish hope, that Israel’s king would be the king of the world, had come true in Jesus the Messiah” (p. 149).

I commend this book, and I recommend that any serious reader of Paul read it. From personal experience, out of college I was a lover of Paul until to say it bluntly…I read about Jesus. Paul, at times, drove me crazy. To me, he just didn’t do things like Jesus. But, after reading What Saint Paul Really Said, I believe I am coming back around to Paul. I am beginning to understand him. And I am happy to receive this insight from N.T. Wright and know what St. Paul really said (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

I’ve read Ridderbos’ Paul: An Outline of His Theology and the book was brutal to read. Wright’s book is much more accessible and current. It’s interesting that I just read What Saint Paul Really Said because someone gave me an article yesterday about why the New Perspective on Paul is dangerous. I actually disagree. The book is a “must read.”  Score: 9 out of 10

Q’s:

What would be some other reasons why this book is so praiseworthy?

Maybe you’re like me…What about Paul drives you crazy?

+++++++

Wright, N.T. (1997). What Saint Paul really said: was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Buy: Amazon.com

ABC's Lost

I must first admit that I never watched Lost, other than, a few episodes. I never got into it, and, frankly, I was one of the naysayers who suggested that Lost is simply an amped-up version of  Gilligan’s Island. However, as the series Lost has concluded, and I have conducted a very, non-scientific poll to gauge the reaction to the last episode (i.e., series finale). It appears to be a 50-50 split–one side absolutely loved the finale and one side loathed it (which, frankly, the reaction makes me question Lost’s marketing team, but that’s for another day).

As stated, I never got into the series; partially because I had class on Tuesday nights for the past three years. But I spent countless Wednesdays hearing people talk about the episode from the night before. Another equally talked about show was 24, which I spent countless Tuesdays hearing people talk about how Jack died, then, didn’t, then found out that his lover who he once thought was dead is not, and then CTU blows up, and then Jack gets angry and stops terrorism in all forms and from all people groups–Arabic, Russian, East German, Gorbachev’s cronies, unpatriotic Americans, and even the patriotic ones.

Regardless, I thought about this today, What if Plato watched Lost? What if he spent all his mental energy trying to figure out what was going on in Lost? Would “The Cave” have ever been written? Or would it end with a strange conclusion like the images on the wall are simply shadows of another reality (oh wait…)?

OK. Better example…What if the apostle Paul watched Lost? Would “Romans” have been written? At least, we can agree that it would have been shorter and more ambiguous than it already appears to be. What if he watched 24? There would be less “Therefore’s” (i.e., what is it there for?) at the beginning of his thoughts and instead the chapters would begin with, Previously on the matter of justification… And “Philemon” would have been written differently because Paul would have told Philemon to accept Onesimus and to live by the rules of freedom in Christ by saying, “The rules are what make us better.” To which Philemon would have responded, “Not today.” And then, Onesimus would not have been accepted back. Ugly.

It appears to me that we spend a lot of our mental energy on TV. That scares me a little (or a lot). I am all for hobbies, entertainment, etc. But what would it be like if we took the same time we used watching TV and talking about it for better, more constructive things?

What do you think?

¹ Let everyone be subject to Hitler, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against Hitler is rebelling against who God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of Hitler? Then do what is right and you will be commended. ⁴ For Hitler is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. Hitler is God’s servant, agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to him, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷ Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It seems strange to read Romans 13:1-7 like this, but this is exactly how the majority of churches in Nazi Germany

Adolf Hitler

applied it. Hitler is God’s servant. Therefore, we should not resist but submit ourselves to what he is doing. When Hitler came into power, Romans 13. When his Gestapo began to take your Jewish neighbors away, Romans 13. When his army invaded Poland, Romans 13. Hitler wisely embraced Romans 13 to give him unquestioned power by the majority of German Christians. Not many Christians spoke up because, let’s be frank, as long as you were on Hitler’s side you were on the winning side. Romans 13 gives Hitler a lot of lead-way to do as he pleases. I mean, Paul would tell the German Christians to be subject to the governing authorities, wouldn’t he? The pro-Nazi churches were just following Scripture, right?

(more…)

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright’s a scholar, but he’s also a pastor. I knew he was a pastor, but it took this past weekend’s “Jesus, Paul and the New Testament: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright” for this to become a reality for me. On Friday night, N.T. Wright (NTW) spoke about one of his areas of expertise–Jesus, who you may have heard about on this blog. NTW spoke about the Greek words that Jesus and Peter use for the word “love.” In John 21:15-17, after Jesus’ resurrection, he speaks to Peter, and the Gospel states,

¹⁵When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love (Greek = agape/αγαπας) me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love (Gk. philes/φιλω) you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

¹⁶Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love (Gk. agape love) me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love (Gk. philes love) you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

¹⁷ The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love (Gk. philes love) me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (Gk. philes love) you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

If you notice, Jesus twice asks Peter if Peter loves him with agape-love. Peter twice responds, “Lord, you know I do love you with philes love.”  Peter offers Jesus philes love, which is friend-love, but Jesus first wants agape love from Peter. Peter just cannot go that far. He can only give Jesus friend-love. What is interesting, Jesus doesn’t keep pestering Peter waiting for Peter to finally respond, “Yes! Lord! Fine! I love you with agape-love!” Peter couldn’t go that far. So what does Jesus do? He comes down to Peter’s level and meets Peter where he is. In a sense Jesus says, “Ok, Peter. You can only offer me friend-love right now. Ok, then, do you friend-love me?”

Is that awesome?! Jesus comes down to Peter’s level and accepts what Peter can give at that moment.

NTW ends this thought on a note like this, “Maybe there is someone here like Peter today. You can’t give Jesus everything, but only something. Jesus will meet you there.” If you ask me, that reveals the pastoral heart of N.T. Wright, which is what I needed to hear. I have a lot of “head knowledge” from him. I’ve read The New Testament and the People of God. I’ve listened to him talk about Paul’s view of the afterlife. But I really needed something to cut me to the core. And NTW provided that for me this past Friday night.

So, from now on, when people ask me, “Why do you like N.T. Wright so much?” I may just respond with this story.

+++++++

You can read my notes from the majority of the sessions here.

You can listen to and/or watch most of the sessions here.

+++++++

If somehow you live in a cave and were not aware, on Sunday, the US House of Representatives have passed the Senate’s bill for healthcare reform. This has caused a lot of stir (and a lot of hurdles to come); and some very angry, others very happy. On one side, I understand that people are nervous about the changes. I get that. I understand that. On the other hand, I am happy that our government has gone out and accomplished something they set out to do. But the healthcare reform bill has received a lot of backlash (from mainly Republicans but also Democrats).

(more…)

The following is a theme-study I did for a class at Biblical Seminary on the New Testament term parousia:

Jesus’ disciples pose an interesting question to Jesus, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming [parousia], and of the end of the age” (Mt. 24:3 NAS)? Jesus speaks of his parousia as a monumental event. He states, “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be” (v. 27), and “will be just like the days of Noah…they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be” (vv. 37, 39).

(more…)

As I was preparing for my sermon on Romans 9:1-18 for our church, Redemption, I bumped into my long-forgotten theological dilemma of “election,” specifically, in verse 11. Much ink has been spilled over this passage, and much of it has dealt with this topic.

A little personal background…I grew up believing in humanity’s free will to chose the gift of God in Jesus Christ, but, during my college years, I adopted much of John Calvin’s theology on election, which basically states that God by his grace chose people to enter into salvation. I ended up applying this, unknowingly, to “double predestination,” meaning that God chose before the beginning of time for some to go to heaven and the rest to go to hell.

However, I have since moved away from this. I don’t think Paul is trying to say this, and I don’t think he’s suggesting that the way he chose Abraham over the others, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau is how God always acts.

Abraham

Since my Calvinist days, I have begun to ask this question about election, “Elected for what?” Many have said elected or chosen to go to heaven, but I am beginning to think that God elects or chooses people to be his witnesses to the world, like he did with Abram in Genesis 12 (“I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing;” Gen. 12:2b). Abram did nothing special or extraordinary to deserve God’s election, but God chose Abram as his representative to the world. In the same way, he chose ancient Israel to be the light of the rest of world. In the same way, he chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. In a similar way, he chose Christ and his Church. God chose them to be his representatives to the rest of the world.

So, when we speak of “election,” we are not passive, that is, God chooses individuals for heaven (which is probably just an Western, individualistic reading of Scripture), but we are active, in that, God has chosen his Church (previously, Israel) to be his collective-representative to the world.

What are we elected for? Like Abram–to be a blessing to the world.

I think I often am too critical of the Church (that is, the global body of Jesus’ followers). Perhaps, it is a good thing in many ways, instead of following it blindly. I have many problems with evangelicals, and I have stated those throughout my time on this blog. I am evangelical so I find that I must be most critical of what I am closest to. Like family, evangelicals drive me insane, but, like family, I do love them. Like family, the Church has made me question if I even want to be a part of this, but, like family, I love the Church so much.

(more…)

Colossians Remixed

We covered the first ethic (ethic of secession) a few days ago. The second ethic in Colossians Remixed is the “ethic of community.” Walsh and Keesmaat quote Rodney Clapp, who states that the early Christians “were about creating and sustaining a unique culture…and they were determined to be a culture, a quite public and political culture, even if it killed them and their children” (p. 179; emphasis mine). The last line sticks with the reader. Losing one’s own life for a cause is difficult to perceive but to also put one’s children in harm’s way is seemingly inconceivable. The writer of the paper is indifferent about this statement, but it makes the reader think about his or her family’s commitment to the cause of Christ. The Jesus painted by much of American Christianity, frankly, is not worth dying for and especially not worth putting one’s children in harm’s way.

(more…)

Colossians Remixed

Part 1.

Jesus is no longer worth following, or, at least, the Jesus painted by twenty-first American Christianity is not worth following. He is not exciting. He does not energize. Many in America have made Jesus into a prosperous, white-collared North American in order for anyone to pay interest. On the other hand, the Jesus, who Paul espouses, is exciting and challenging. Through Paul’s epistle to the Colossians, Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat in their book Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire bring to light a first-century Jesus, who is the Lord of the whole world and an alternative to Caesar and his empire. Based on this type of Jesus, the authors do well to remind the reader of a few things that he or she should take into account. They take this first-century, subversive message of Jesus and apply it directly to followers of Christ today. This Jesus is worth following.

(more…)