Another theory - this time with little basis

It is not in natural harmony with the aim behind this blog but here is another theory:

For quite some time I have been convinced that post-modernism is really just another bread of modernism and not as new as it claims. This has mainly been driven by my very limited reading of 19th and early 20th century writing, which suggests to me that the same ideas have been around for ages. I have heard it suggested this week that we ought to start to put a greater emphasis on the term 'post-colonialism', as a more helpful description of where our culture is, and is heading (although 9/11 I think may have changed some things).

The beauty of the term is that brings in the themes of culture, ethnicity, power, etc. which are so important to an understanding of our current climate. In contrast the term post-modernism doesn't is nothing like as rich.

It is just a theory, I haven't thought about it too much, and would appreciate a response by the more knowledgeable.

God forgive me

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:13f)

I was ashamed of the gospel at work today. I am usually unafraid of claiming to be a Christian, but today the pride that I secretly harboured about that was stripped away. Instead of being able to portray my beliefs as my own superior possession, I found myself in a corner where I had to be forced to identify with what was a child-like expression of faith, and not at all like the wisdom of the Greeks.

God forgive me.

Quotable: Brent Sandy on the language of prophecy

prophecy speaks to the heart as much as the head. If we think that by objectifying and exegeting every aspect of prophecy we can grasp the intent, we will have ignored one of the most important features of prophecy. The variety of expressions of future rewards allow us to preexperience a small part of what being in God's presence will be like....

As is evident from Revelation 2-3, prophetic language communicates with bright lights and a full range of colors. Its subject is photogenic, and images of the subject appear on a large screen with an infinite number of pixels. To read prophecy correctly means to stand in awe of the aesthetics of prophetic artistry and to catch a vision of what heaven will be like.

(p.31, D. Brent Sandy, 2002, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Quotable: Leithart on post-exilic holiness and critical scholarship

Peter J. Leithart has been doing some reading and shares it with the blogosphere...

Hannah Harrington gave a very fine presentation on the holiness and purity terminology in Ezra and Nehemiah. She showed that these post-exilic texts display an expansion of holy space to encompass the whole city as well as an expansion of the duties of Levites, a closing of the gap between Levites and priests. These two changes are perfectly consistent, displaying a general trend of "up-grading" the holiness of Israel after the exile. The people of Israel become the new sanctum, which can be contaminated and against which sacrilege might be committed.

[...read more]

After a little further thought he then posts the following:

One of the most annoying things about critical biblical scholarship is the way that every discussion has to contribute to questions of composition, authorship, historical setting, etc. Harrington gives a very intriguing paper on holiness in Ezra-Nehemiah, but the whole thing is part of a "larger" argument about the common authorship of the two books.

Without a church to serve with edifying theological interpretation, scholars serve the pseudo-church of biblical scholarship.

Quotable: Longenecker on Galatians

In view of [the] profile of the agitators [judizers], it is tempting to think that Paul's letter to the Galatian Christians deals primarily with the issue of 'the law', not least since this seems to be the issue that has overwhelmed the Galatian communities. Such an impression, however, requires some qualification. While the Galatian Christians; regard for the law provoked Paul to write much on the subject, his deliberations on nomistic observance are framed within the context of prior convictions about the nature of Christian personal and corporate life. In particular, he surveys the Christian life in relation to two dimensions: a temporal and a qualitative dimension. With reference to the qualitative dimension, Paul demonstrates the Christian life to be intrinsically marked our by Christ-likenesss; in this context, his case relies on a portrait of self-giving as the essential component of Christian lifestyle.

Of these two dimensions, it is arguably the qualitative dimension, which focuses on cruciform lifestyle, that forms the backbone of the theological body of the letter. If that claim is over-stated it is only slightly so. Paul's strategy in Galatians is most effective when he exploits the full scope of the qualitative dimension. Although he employs various arguments concerning the law in Galatians, Paul's finest deliberations on the subject are informed by a belief that cruciform existence is intrinsic to Christian identity and is the most intimate form of relationship with God. Paul's instructions about the law follow in the wake of this pre-determined vision of Christian moral identity.

(pp. 65-66, Bruce Longenecker, ‘Galatians’, in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

While I don't think Longenecker is spot on, he has an important point. After all Paul's argument (I think) hinges on vv. 3:1-9:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Faith is central in this passage, but so is the Spirit, and so by implication so is a transformed, cruciform, life.

Glorification

'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom 3:23)

I think the word 'so' should be included in there for to get Paul's meaning: 'All have sinned and [so] fall short of the glory of God' (cf. 2:7; 2:10). But the universality of this statement makes it strange that later Paul says that to Israel 'belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises' (9:4). And later still we find that there are those, 'not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles', which are prepared for glory (9:24). How is this so? Has Paul forgotten what he said in 3:23.

3:24, following on from the famous verse of universal condemnation, continues by saying that the same sinners: 'are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'. Great stuff, but another question arises: what does it really mean to be 'glorified'? I think that (considering Romans 8, 9:4, 9:26 - as expanding on 9:23) the answer must be adoption. That is, to be made into the image of God's Son (to be 'in Christ Jesus'), and to enjoy his privileges - foremost among which is access to the Father.

Sorry for the ramble... but it came into my head to meander through Romans, following the word 'glory'.

It took blood and guts

2 Chron. 4

2 Chronicles 4 is a description of the temple furnishings. Previously the thing that has most stuck me about these descriptions is the ostentatiously lavish nature of the temple and the objects that filled it. This is certainly very important to the author, and points us to the glory of the God, that the furnishing attempts to mirror and honour. But reading the passage today all I could think of was blood. Almost all of the temple furniture is tied to the shedding of blood... to the butchering of animals. Of course I had always known it but I only really thought about it today - the temple courtyard must have stunk to high heaven (no pun intended).

The humongous sea, and the ten large basins, are described being used for washing by the priests. Exodus 30:17-21 makes clear that priests are to wash their hands before offering up the dead animal, but I don't think we should think of what goes on in Mosques, or RC churches. OT priests killed the animal before offering it up in the temple courts (not on the altar), and so no doubt would have been caked in blood which needed to be cleaned up before approaching a holy God. As well as the washing there were shovels, to deal with the mess left behind by the butchering and fire.

What can we learn about our God from something like this?

I remember a bible study in Hebrews from when I was in Poland when the leader proudly declared that today we were going to talk about 'BLOOD'. I think it was Hebrews 9 which contains 12 references to the word. Not very spiritual is it? The author of Hebrews declares:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (9:22)

But Hebrews 9 is immensely concerned with spiritual things, as were the OT priests. They were concerned with how sinful people like us could enter the presence of God. The incredible personal sacrifice that animal sacrifices meant to the people of Israel, and the bloody way in which they were administered, showed how seriously difficult the priests thought this was. But as Hebrews points out even this costly arrangement did not really achieve anything spiritually lasting. The horrendous butchery of the OT was only ended by the even more horrendous killing of the Son of God.

Such is the seriousness of our sin. Trembling is in order. But also faithful rejoicing.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (9:11-14)

How my thoughts on Paul's mission developed - a response to Peter Dray

Following my previous post on Paul's missionary strategy, Peter Dray (old friend and UCCF staffworker) made a bible reference packed comment. Foolishly he asked me to let him know how my thoughts develop, and this lead to the following obscenely long post...

Introduction (!)

In Acts Paul’s role as Apostle to the Gentiles is established by the risen Jesus’ declaration Ananias that ‘ he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts 9:15 – pointed out by Peter Dray).

My previous post should not be taken to be a denial of Paul’s mission to spread the gospel to the gentiles, but rather that he did not seek to achieve this through a pragmatic approach of preaching in cities where his voice would carry the furthest. I think it more likely that he fulfilled his mission to the gentiles, strangely to our Gentile Christian ears, by prioritising his preaching towards the Jews. Although this may be strange to our thinking it fits perfectly with the biblical storyline of how God sought to bring about the redemption of the world, the blessing of the nations, through the prioritising of (the electing of) one man (Abraham) and one people (the Jews). In the Old Testament the Jews were ‘entrusted with the oracles of God’ (Rom 3:2) but not for their salvation only, but for the nations too. Paul’s missionary strategy was rooted in the conviction that he must follow God’s method of bringing salvation to the world, un-pragmatic and foolish as it may seem to the world. And this meant not short-circuiting the Jews but entrusting them with the good news of Jesus, the King of the Jews, for the good of the gentiles.

A wander through Acts

The first two ‘missions’ of Paul in Damascus and Jerusalem, immediately following his commission, involve preaching to the Jews only. Sadly though, in common with many Jews throughout Paul’s ministry both the Jews of Damascus and the Greek-speaking Jews of Jerusalem reject God in Christ, and seek to kill Paul.

In Antioch (Acts 11) we have the first example of Paul preaching to gentiles as well as Jews, following others example, although not much detail is given of how this came about. At Salamis in Cyprus we only have record of him preaching ‘in the synagogues of the Jews’. In Paphos Paul and Barnabas’ reputation proceeds them and a gentile proconsul summands them so he can hear the word of God (Acts 11).

In Pisidian Antioch he teaches in the synagogue and is initially well received. In his teaching he makes a distinction between the rulers of the Jews who have rejected Jesus, and the Diaspora Jews (11:26). As in Cyprus, his preaching in the synagogue does not mean that word does not spread beyond the Jews, and the next Sabbath ‘the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord’. Sadly this fills the Jews with Jealousy, because of their possessiveness of God, a theme Paul picks up in Romans.

Paul then declares:

"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you [Jews]. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

"‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 13:46-47)

Much as we may not understand why Paul would seek to preach first to the Jews, for Paul it is not a preference but a necessity. The Jews rejection of the gospel he preaches is a rejection of their God-given calling, as well as God himself. Isaiah 49:6 that he cites declares Israel’s vocation to bring salvation to the ends of the earth, they have rejected this vocation in their reaction to the crowds seeking the light declared by Paul. The light is no longer Israel, it is now the church, the body of Christ, and so Christ himself. God’s purposes have not been frustrated even though not all Israel are Israel, in fact the Jews rejection leads to salvation going to the gentiles as Paul now turns his missionary efforts to them. However as he told the Jews in Pisidian Antioch just because one group of Jews have rejected Jesus, this does not mean he gives up on them all and no longer thinks that he should speak the word of God first to the Jews in other cities.

In Iconium we only hear of them teaching in the synagogue, although both Jews and Greeks turn to Christ. At Lystra, Paul hears a man and this acts as a catalyst so that they preach the gospel to the gentiles there. In Philippi a few ‘chance’ events over just a few days lead to the gospel being proclaimed to, and received by, gentiles in the city. In Thessalonica ‘as was his custom’ (17:2) Paul preaches in the synagogue until the Jews rouse a mob and he has to escape the city. ‘When they arrived [in Berea] they went into the Jewish synagogue’ (17:10) too and received a much better reception. Athens is the only occasion I could find in Acts were the synagogue was not the centre of Paul’s missionary work for while he ‘reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons’ he also taught ‘in the marketplace every day’ and on invitation also in the Areopagus. Perhaps this disproves my contention but I actually think the exception proves the rule – but then I would.

In Corinth normality is restored and ‘he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks’ (18:4). But again, the Jews oppose him and he declares that from ‘now on I will go to the Gentiles’. And again, this strong opposition is not imputed to Jews of other cities and in Ephesus he spends three months in the synagogue before being forced to start a separate church because of opposition.

Peter Dray’s comments

Pete raises 1 Thess 1:7-8 which describes the influence of the church in Thessalonica (a important city of the region), and Acts 16:12 which mentions that Phillipi was a leading city of Macedonia. These both show that the cities Paul spent time in were important cities, and this may well be why Paul chose to visit them, but we have no evidence of this in the NT. However, we do have evidence that he sought to spread the gospel to the Jew first, and as I pointed out in my previous post immigrant Jews would be found mainly in the most important cities of the Roman empire.

Pete then says:

I'd also question whether Romans 1:16 is talking about an ongoing emphasis of Jew first, Gentile later. How does that affect the reading of 2:9 for instance, and also the discussion in chapters 9-11?

This made me think a little but I do think it is an ongoing emphasis. If there was a turning point in the ‘Jew first’ approach it is surely the rejection of Jesus that leads to his crucifixion, but I think I have shown that while Paul recognises the salvation-historical significance of this rejection, his approach in each of the cities of the Roman Empire demonstrates that he does not think that this rejection was final and ends the priority of Israel. The ordering of blessing, and so cursing, has not been altered by Jewish rejection of Jesus either now or at the final judgment (as I think Rom 1:16f; 2:9) demonstrate. Romans 9-11 is clear on this also. Gentiles are engrafted onto the Jewish olive tree but will never naturally belong there. While so far in this post we have focused on how Israel exists for the salvation of the world, in Romans 11 salvation-history has moved on and now feels the need to remind the gentile church that they have been saved ‘so as to make Israel jealous’ and so lead to Israel’s salvation.

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:25-32)

It is weird to our ears, and to Paul’s. True is the saying: ‘How unsearchable are [God’s] judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’, that follows this strange description of God’s plan for the Jews and gentiles.