not a knockout punch; more of a glancing blow

In what little spare time I have at the moment, I’ve been slowly working through 2 Thessalonians, especially the eschatological section of 2Thess 2.1-12. This portion of the letter has been a veritable hotbed of debate, although for various reasons. On one extreme, since the work of Schmidt (1801), furthered by Kern (1839) and Baur (1845), most critical scholars see it as evidence that Paul did not compose the letter.¹ On another extreme, since (at least) the work of Scofield (1909), furthered by a number of Dispensational writers since then, many evangelical scholars see this passage as evidence of Paul’s knowledge of what will take place at the eschaton.

Both of these perspectives have their merits (and faults) and both should be examined carefully and honestly by all who engage with this letter. Since Paul Foster recently addressed the issues in the first extreme (see “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem,” JSNT 35.2 [2012]: 150-75), and since I agree with most of what he argues, there is no need for me to enter into that discussion. Instead, my concern here is with the second extreme, specifically the kind of knowledge that Paul had about the eschaton and the reasons why he says what he does.

I make this my focus partly because David Dean (tenuously) argues for Paul’s knowledge of these events as being chronological in nature, and it was this chronological knowledge that he imparted to the Thessalonians during his brief sojourn.² That seems to handle the “kind” question. With regard to the “reason” question, Dean sees this imparting of chronological knowledge as necessary for a right understanding of the eschaton–particularly the timing of the (so-called) “rapture.” Specifically, for Dean, the “rapture” takes place before all of the other events described and Christians can rest assured that the other events have not taken place because the “rapture” has not yet happened.

Dean makes this argument on the basis of what he sees Paul saying in 2Thess 2.1-12. By way of summary: after stating the concern (cf. 2.1-2)–i.e. a faulty teaching concerning the return of Christ–Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to remain true to what they know (cf. 2.3a). He then launches into what appear to be “signs” that will precede Christ’s return (cf. 2.3b-12)–e.g. the apostasy, the revelation of the man of lawlessness, the removal of the evil that prevails, the defeat of the man of lawlessness at Christ’s return, and judgment.³ In fact, the logical and syntactical construction of the Greek reveals a necessary causal relationship between the “signs” and Christ’s return. Paul’s remarks, therefore, could be seen as endorsing a chronology.

However, I am not so sure that Paul’s knowledge is necessarily chronological–in the strict detailed sense that Dean proposes. Specifically, I do not see Paul saying: “Before the return of Christ happens: first, there will be ‘the apostasy’; second, there will be the ‘unveiling of the “man of lawlessness” ‘; third, this ‘man’ will oppose God and exalt himself over all gods; fourth, he will take ‘his seat in the temple of God’ and claim to be God; fifth, that which prevails will be revealed and then taken out of the way; sixth, the ‘lawless one’ will be defeated by Christ; etc.” Paul’s language in this text does not come across as being that precise.

Moreover, contrary to what Scofield argued (cf. notes on 2.3) and Dean rehashes, I don’t think Paul sees all of the “events” in 2Thess 2.3b-12 as reserved exclusively for the distant future. In particular, and contrary to how the NIV, TNIV, NLT, NCV, and CEV translate it, the details pertaining to the “man of lawlessness” are not waiting to be climatically revealed (cf. 2.4); Paul’s language stresses that nearly all of the details are already taking place. In other words: the “man of lawlessness” is presently opposing (ἀντικείμενος) God; he is presently exalting (ὑπεραιρόμενος) himself over all other gods; and he does this because he has already taken his seat (καθίσαι) in the temple of God and is presently displaying (ἀποδεικνύντα) himself as God. The only detail waiting fulfillment in the future is this “man” unveiling (ἀποκαλύπτω; cf. 2.3b), which Paul goes on to describe as contemporaneous with the appearance (ἐπιφάνεια) of Christ’s return/coming/presence (παρουσία; cf. 2.8). And since the bulk of what Paul says up to 2.5 is about the man of lawlessness, the reminder in 2.5 would seem to refer to that previous teaching and not Dean’s proposed chronological eschatology.

At the very least, this creates problems for the rather absurd theories of Dispensationalists like Tim LaHaye (again) and Thomas Ice (et al), who both drone on about the birth, upbringing, ethnicity, political affiliations, and identity of this “man of lawlessness”, whom they inappropriately call the “Antichrist”. Such suggestions reveal a lack of understanding of Paul’s overall meaning and his use of apocalyptic language. The contemporaneity of the “man’s” unveiling (and subsequent defeat) and Christ’s appearing also create problems for the usual (Classic) Dispensationalist eschatological “timeline”. In particular, the contemporaneity raises serious doubts about the so-called pretribulation rapture of the saints, which is based on the more troubling notion of a two-stage return of Christ. Moreover, a “rapture of the saints” or even its (supposed) timing is not even close to being Paul’s concern–either here in 2Thess 2.1-12 or the only passage in the whole of the NT that indicates something like a “rapture”: 1Thess 4.17.

As he states at the beginning of his argument, Paul’s concern (for both the Thessalonians and anyone else who might read his letter) is about faithful patience, allegiance to truth about what God has done and will do in and through Christ, and not being swept away by speculative theories about Christ’s return. You know, theories like those (explicitly or implicitly) proposed by: Joseph Smith, William Miller, Charles T. Russell (twice), later Jehovah’s Witnesses (multiple attempts), Hal Lindsey (twice), Edgar Whisenaunt (twice), John Hinkle, Harold Camping (repeatedly), etc.

_____________________________________
¹ The letter is dislodged from Paul’s hands on account of its (apparently) different eschatology vis-a-vis that of 1 Thessalonians. Specifically, 2Thess seems to advocate a recognizable chronological sequence of events that precede Christ’s return (cf. 2Thess 2.3-12), whereas 1Thess appears to indicate that the return will be without warning (cf. 1Thess 4.13-5.11). Moreover, while 1Thess reads as though Paul sees himself as alive when Christ returns, 2Thess gives the impression that Paul is giving up on that hope. In other words: 1Thess anticipates an imminent return (i.e. in Paul’s lifetime) whereas 2Thess allows for considerable delays (i.e. well after Paul’s death). Thus, the “consensus” for how to explain these differences is that Paul wrote 1Thess and someone writing in his name penned 2Thess.
² See “Does 2 Thessalonians 2.1-3 Exclude the Pretribulation Rapture?” (Bibliotheca Sacra 168 [2011]: 196. I plan to deal with some of the finer points of Dean’s argument in a different post.
³ Props to those who recognize the variant I proposed. Don’t worry, I have reasons for doing so; I’m not just making stuff up for the Gehenna of it.

asking for trouble

My day typically begins c. 6.45am; 7.00am if I’m feeling lazy. By 7.15am/7.30am the first round of coffee is about to be consumed, and I start my search for mental jolt. (For some reason, for me, coffee fails in the jolting business). This usually means finding a book or article that I know will bug me and put me on the defensive. The sooner I’m kicked into critical thinking mode the better. This morning, the chosen jolt was an article with the prickly title, “Who Is Wrong? A Review of John Gerstner’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth” (R.L. Mayhue in The Master’s Seminary Journal 3.1 [1992]: 73-94).

To clarify the basic tension of the article (for those who are unaware): Gerstner’s book, as the tagline reveals, is a “Critique of Dispensationalism”, and his chosen adverbiage, “Wrongly” indicates where he comes down on that critique.¹ He ain’t in favor of it (at least its particular hermeneutic). The Master’s Seminary Journal is produced and disseminated by none other than The Master’s Seminary (California), and TMS, as their statement of faith indicates (briefly here and especially here), is an advocate of Dispensationalism. Since Mayhue is on staff at TMS, we can safely guess where his “review” of Gerstner’s critique is headed. (The implied either-or of his title and the choice to use TMS’s journal to offer the “review” are telling clues).

Here’s what bugged me about the article, and it’s something Mayhue said quite early in his discussion/monologue. Mayhue states (more or less; more on the less side) one of Gerstner’s key problems with Dispensationalism–i.e. it fails to do proper justice to biblical soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology, and the necessary links between them. Mayhue accuses (albeit in subtle ways) Gerstner of allowing his Reformed tradition (i.e. Calvinism, specifically) to govern his interpretation of both the biblical doctrines in view and Dispensationalism. The implication is that Mayhue see such allowance as inappropriate. Then Mayhue asserts:

[Gerstner] seems to debate from the following basic syllogism, though he never states it so succinctly as this:

Premise 1: Calvinism is central to all true theology
Premise 2: Dispensationalism does not embrace Calvinism
Conclusion: Dispensationalism is a ‘spurious’ and ‘dubious’ expression of true theology (p. 2).

Thus, he strongly calls for dispensationalism’s quick surrender.

–Mayhue, “Who Is Wrong?,” 75.

The reason this bugged me has three parts. First, Mayhue (subtly) criticizes Gerstner for allowing his theological tradition (i.e. Calvinism) to dictate his interpretation. On this point, Mayhue (rightly) states: “Presuppositions and assumptions undergird all reasoned thought” (81). However, Mayhue does not acknowledge (or recognize) that Dispensationalism must necessarily be included in that truth. He overlooks the fact that Dispensationalism has its own presuppositions and assumptions and they necessarily govern the interpretative process. In fact, Classical and Modified (or Revised) Dispensationalism² essentially require loyalty to the interpretative system they establish in order to understand properly the theological conclusions they find.

Second, Mayhue’s “review” (=polemic) operates on the basis of the suggested syllogism, which Mayhue acknowledges as never clearly articulated as he gives it. This means Mayhue’s criticisms focus on Mayhue’s interpretation of Gerstner’s logic as though that interpretation is an accurate reflection of what Gerstner clearly argues. (Admittedly I have not read Gerstner’s book, so I do not know for sure how accurate Mayhue’s interpretation is).

Third, Mayhue’s own argument in particular and Dispensationalism in general are not exempt from the charges of the suggested syllogism. To say this differently: the same argument Mayhue uses against Gerstner can be turned around and used against Mayhue. In effect it would go something like this:

Premise 1: Dispensationalism is central to all true interpretation of Bible (i.e. “rightly dividing the word of truth”)³
Premise 2: Non-Dispensationalists do not embrace the hermeneutical system of Dispensationalism
Conclusion: Non-Dispensationalist readings do not represent true interpretations of the Bible; they are all ill-informed, dubious, spurious, liberal, and unorthodox.

The implication of this argument is that if one does not embrace Dispensationalism, then one does not embrace the true meaning of the Bible; and if one does not embrace that true meaning, then one cannot be faithful to its message; and if one is not faithful to its message, then how can that person truly claim to be evangelical? The trouble is that the Dispensational hermeneutic and its particular emphases are what need to be embraced, and they tend to be prioritized over core tenets of historic Christian orthodoxy. In the words of Levar Burton: “You don’t have to take my word for it.” Here is a confession from a former Dispensationalist named, Clarence Bass (in the 1960s):

Even today some of my dearest friends are convinced that I have departed from the evangelical faith. No affirmation of my belief in the cardinal doctrines of faith–the virgin birth, the efficaciousness of Christ’s death, the historicity of the resurrection, the necessity of the new birth, even the fervent expectancy of the person, literal, actual bodily return of the Lord to earth–will convince them, because I have ceased to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’.

–quoted in S.J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (1992), 92–emphasis original.

_____________________________________
¹ Also, for those who don’t know, Gerstner’s title takes a not-so-subtle jab at an earlier work called, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (1896) by C.I. Scofield–the champion of Dispensationalism in the US.
² While I am generally not a fan of Classical and Modified (or Revised) Dispensationalism (and its proponents), I am more appreciative of so-called Progressive Dispensationalism (and its advocates). However, please do not mistake appreciation for acceptance.
³ What Scofield meant by this phrase (taken from 2Tim 2.15) is not what Paul meant by that phrase. In fact, how Scofield uses that passage to construct and justify his Dispensational interpretation reveals his ignorance of Paul’s meaning.

thinking out loud (again)

What would happen if the Reformed doctrine of “limited atonement” were understood from an eschatological perspective rather than one of predetermination?

quote of the morning

When F.H. Elpis argued that in baptism, believers are united with the second person of the Godhead (i.e. Jesus), yet confirmation is the necessary second-stage for receiving the indwelling presence of the third person (i.e. the Spirit), G.W.H. Lampe ably retorts:

This is wholly false. The Church was not told to await the Paraclete after being already united with the Second Person of the Trinity; the disciples were promised the coming of the Paraclete to be the mediator to them of the glorified Christ: to make them Christian believers, united with the Lord and receiving new life through him. The idea that we can be Christians, united by faith with Christ, and yet be without the indwelling of the Spirit, is a basic Trinitarian error, resting on a tritheistic theology.

–G.W.H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit (1967), xxiii-xiv

calvin, times three

My apologies for the lack of ‘Calvin in a year’ posting; the laptop has been acting up, and I hesitate to use it for long periods of time. That being the case, while covering three specific readings, I’ll need to keep this post somewhat brief–albeit brevity times three, seeing that I’m a bit behind with the daily quotes.

1) As noted in the last post, Calvin makes a case for ‘knowledge of God [being] implanted in the human mind’ (Inst 1.3) and how some attempt to excise that knowledge from who they are–so that they can (attempt to) become who/what they desire. Next, Calvin explores more of this compulsion to separate oneself from the knowledge of God (see Inst 1.4). The result of the separation is a callousness or hardness of heart, which in turn leads to repulsion and even hatred toward God. However, Calvin notes the (unacceptable) paradox within such people when he says:

[A] sense of Deity is naturally engraven on the human heart, in the fact, that the very reprobate are forced to acknowledge it. When at their ease, they can jest about God, and talk pertly and loquaciously in disparagement of his power; but should despair, from any cause, overtake them, it will stimulate them to seek him, and dictate ejaculatory prayers, proving that they were not entirely ignorant of God, but had perversely suppressed feelings which ought to have been earlier manifested.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.4.4

2) The next reading (see Inst 1.5.1-4) continues the ‘knowledge of God’ theme, only this time Calvin’s focus is on external support for such knowledge–i.e. what we might loosely call cosmology (or, ‘natural theology’).* As he argues (and I paraphrase), a key point of this chapter is to show that while God displays his wisdom and power throughout creation, it is only by ‘extreme stupidity’ that  people continue to ask, Where is God?

Moreover, below the surface of the argument, I almost hear Calvin saying: God is not some vicious tyrant demanding loyalty without just cause (as tyrants do); instead God has lovingly and patiently gone out of his way not only to reveal his existence by also show himself worthy of respect.** Two examples of this are: the innate knowledge of God, given by God himself; and the external reality of creation, which he made. Specifically thinking of the wonders and depths of the cosmos, Calvin says:

none who have the use of their eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so conspicuously in the endless variety, yet distinct and well-ordered array, of the heavenly host; and, therefore, it is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom. The same is true in regard to the structure of the human frame. To determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry and beauty, with the skill of a Galen . . . requires singular acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to proclaim the admirable wisdom of its Maker.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.5.2

3) The final reading related to this post (see Inst 1.5.5-8) seems to respond to the explanations given by those who not only suppress (or even excise) innate knowledge of God but also deny God as Creator. In other words, Calvin appears to confronting those who wish to say, ‘By my own skill and knowledge, I can define life and existence apart from God.’ To which Calvin rightly says:

Nothing, indeed, can be more preposterous than to enjoy those nobel endowments which bespeak the divine presence within us, and to neglect him who, of his own good pleasure, bestows them upon us.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.5.6

————————————————————
* While Calvin divides this chapter into two parts (i.e. 1.5.1-10 and 1.5.11-15), the reading plan I’m following divides it into four parts.
** Cue the criticism of Bertrand Russell.

calvin for today

Today’s reading comes from a chapter bearing the ostensibly positive title, ‘Knowledge of God Implanted in the Human Mind’ (Institutes 1.3). I say ‘ostensibly’ because, even though the chapter is bracketed with positive affirmations, the substance of the chapter is rather grim. I may be speaking out of turn, but it appears as though Calvin introduces this grimness now in order to preface a later (and fuller) critique of the human condition. We’ll have to wait and see if that is indeed the case.  For now, I offer two quotes from today’s reading–both are admittedly quite grim, but I will try to draw out some positives. First:

For the world (as will be shortly seen)* labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways.  I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.3.3.

One positive that comes out of this is that in spite of human efforts to jettison God, God still remains; he is unmoved and undaunted by man’s kicking and screaming against him. (The whole, ‘kicking against the goads’ [cf. Acts 26.14] thing comes to mind). And second:

It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that religion was devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals, as a means of keeping the body of people in due subjection, while there was nothing which those very individuals, while teaching others to worship God, less believed than the existence of God.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.3.2.

Two positives can be recognised here.  One, criticisms are nothing new. Modern critics of religions (specifically Christianity) are neither pioneering new ground nor championing a novel or even profound assessment; they are merely repeating tired and insubstantial conclusions proffered by earlier generations. And second, these sorts of criticisms only work if the caricature against which they are levelled is in fact a true representation of religion (especially Christianity). However, I think Calvin wants to show that such caricatures are indeed false portraits of true Christianity, and that if the criticisms thrown at the caricature were aimed at what Christian truly is, their feebleness (nay, impotence) would be exposed.

______________________________________
* It is this parenthetical statement that makes me see this chapter as a preface to a later discussion.

planned thought of the day

Yesterday I mentioned the plan to read through Calvin’s Institutes in a year.  Day three is now finished. Prior to that I gave a summary of my (meagre) blogging efforts in 2011.  In the latter post, I proposed the idea of trying to blog more often (and hopefully with better content); and in the light of former post (still with me?), I came up with an idea: to meet the goal of ‘more often’ (in terms of quantity), why not give a ‘thought of the day’ from Calvin?  So that’s what I’ll do.  Sound good?  Here’s today’s:

[I]t is not the mere fear of punishment that restrains [the pious man]* from sin. Loving and revering God as his father, honouring and obeying him as his master, although there were no hell, he would revolt at the very idea of offending him. Such is pure and genuine religion, namely, confidence in God coupled with serious fear–fear, which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law. And it ouught to be more carefully considered, that all men promiscuously do homage to God, but very few truly reverence him. On all hands there is abundance of ostentatious ceremonies, but sincerity of heart is rare.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.2.2.

This brought to mind Hos 6.6: ‘For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, an in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings’ (cf. Isa 1.11-17).

___________________________________
* I am using the term ‘man’ in the sense that Calvin most likely used it–i.e. an ancient classification term denoting a particular species, in this case: a human being. And because the ancient term, α͗νθρωπος is grammatically ‘masculine’ all related pronouns will agree in ‘gender’ with this antecedent.

calvin, here and there

Along with Jim West (and presumably a load of others), I’m reading through Calvin’s, Institutes of the Christian Religion in a year.* Part of this decision is rooted in the fact that I’ve never read this work from cover to cover; I’ve ashamedly only read it piecemeal. The other part is because I’ve recently developed an interest in the early history of the Protestant Reformation, a subject about which I sadly know only a little.

Yesterday’s reading was the Preface to the Institutes, which involved a somewhat heated (yet controlled) critique of how a particular gathering of Christians are enduring the persecutions of a much larger gathering. (Yeah, glad we’ve moved on since Calvin’s time). His aim, which admittedly gets away from him, is to show how those being persecuted (and Calvin is a part of this group) are enduring such things unjustly, and that the doctrines they uphold are not contrary to Scripture–as their adversaries claim. In fact, Calvin describes the ones enduring persecution as faithful to Scriptural teaching while those inflicting persecution are operating outside of Scripture–even though they firmly believe they have its support.

Today’s reading addresses the first point of the first topic, the topic being ‘God’ and the point being the distinction yet necessary connection between ‘knowledge of God’ and ‘knowledge of ourselves.’ His case here is fairly straightforward, yet it must be weighed carefully (at least, in my opinion). I say that because there are points in the argument where confusion could arise and we draw wrong conclusions about what Calvin in fact says. To be rather candid, I now see how my earlier (impatient) readings of Calvin led me to false assumptions about the case he is trying to make. I am curious to see what other changes will occur as I continue reading. (This could be scary).

Until then, let me leave you with two quotations from today’s reading, one simply because its contents grabbed my attention and the other because of something completely different (sort of). First:

So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being his is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme follow; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.1.2.

This, for me, distills the substance of Paul’s argument in both Rom 1.20-25 (cf. 1.28-32) and 1 Cor 1.18-25. And the second quotation:

we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.1.1.

When I read this, it immediately sounded familiar. On the side, I’ve been reading Tolstoy’s Resurrection and it was this book that I realised was the source of the familiarity. At a crucial stage in the narrative, the lead character, Nehklyudov undergoes a dramatic change within himself–something he cannot explain. In Calvin’s language, Nehklyudov moves from only looking at the earth (i.e. seeing himself as centre of all things, and deserving of all of life’s pleasures because of his status) to seeing the infinity that lies beyond and how infinitesimal he truly is in relation to that beyond. This transition also brought into sharp relief the cancer of his own condition: he valued his status as supreme and deemed all others as dregs of the world because they were not his equal. However the transition changed everything, especially his perceptions:

It was a strange thing–ever since Nehklyudov had began to realize his own faults and to be disgusted with himself he ceased to be disgusted with other people.

–Tolstoy, Resurrection 161.**

Our perceptions of other people are determined in part by our perceptions of ourselves, and how we define ourselves is determined by how we choose to understand and define God.

____________________________________________
* The link to Jim’s blog offers you a helpful plan to follow, if you’re interesting in taking part.  If you are, then you might want to download the plan and get cracking; Calvin’s Institutes is not A.A. Milne.
** This from the 1966 Penguin Classics edition.

a wee outline for a not-so-wee topic

Scot McKnight ‘swiped’ this from Patrick Mitchel, and I’m swiping it from McKnight. This is a truly wonderful summary on the biblical view of the Spirit, and I am especially pleased to see this sort of discussion happening in the church–specifically in a ‘forum’-type format. (Go here to see more about this format. This is great stuff). My favourite points in this outline are 4 and 6.
Enjoy!
-cs

___________________________________

Last night in our wee church we had our monthly ‘Forum’ on an issue related to the Christian faith. It was my turn to lead and I proposed 6 things and we had a really good discussion which continued over a pint afterwards. [Here’s] a skeleton summary for what it’s worth.

CONTENTION 1; The blessing of the Spirit is the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises and includes both Jews and Gentiles

CONTENTION 2: The Christian life begins and continues in and through the Spirit

1.   It is the Spirit who reveals the gospel

2.   The Spirit brings the believer into an objectively new position before God

3.   The Spirit brings the believer into an ongoing relational experience of God

CONTENTION 3 :The church is essentially a fellowship of the Spirit

CONTENTION 4. Christians belong to the new age of the Spirit as opposed to the old age of the flesh (which is not some sort of inner existential struggle between two natures within the believer)

CONTENTION 5: sanctification has  past, present and future aspects

i. A Finished Reality (‘This is who you are’)

ii. Ongoing spiritual and ethical transformation by the Spirit (‘Be who you are’)

iii. Future Glory (‘This is who you will be’)

CONTENTION 6: Perhaps the biggest differences among Christians is how much spiritual progress Christians should make through the empowering presence of the Spirit

And I have to bring in Gordon Fee here [note his wee dig at Luther's 'justified sinner' ( simil iustus et peccator)]

‘Paul expected people to exhibit changed behaviour … because the Spirit empowers this new life, Paul has little patience for the point of view that allows for people to be “justified sinners” without appropriate changes in attitudes and conduct … Nor would Paul understand an appeal to helplessness on the part of those who live in and walk by the Spirit … in which the “flesh” continually proves to be the greater power.’ Fee, Empowering Presence, 879-80

But the last word to Paul

‘And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God.’ (Colossians 1:10)

transient theological thoughts (1)

This might become a series of posts and it might not; I’m not going to bother with deciding that now.  However there will be three posts with this heading, each describing a particular theological idea that piqued my curiosity.* Although, seeing that there will be three and seeing that I’m a faithful church-goer, and since anything done in the church more than twice constitues a tradition; it seems as though these three posts establish a tradition I now have to uphold. (Crap. Walked right into that one). With that, here’s the first topic:

Jesus Ain’t No Looker
(Got your attention, hopefully). I’ve mentioned before that while doing my research I continually seek opportunities to learn more, especially in areas outside of my field of interest. In some ways this is because I (occasionally) miss being in a classroom, but it’s primarily due to my awareness that learning is never finished; there is always something more. Lately, I have been listening to a series of theology lectures on iTunesU and for the most part they have been quite good.

However in the most recent lecture, while dealing with modern views or conceptual images of Jesus, the professor** made a passing comment about Jesus’ appearance. He said: ‘The Bible says that [Jesus] had nothing in his appearance that would attract us to him. Nothing.’ This professor then went on to quote (loosely) Isaiah 53.2-3 to support his claim. For those unaware, this sort of argument is nothing new. Interestingly, Franz Delizsch briefly mentions the contrasting portraits of Jesus before and after Constantine, where previous depictions were ‘repulsive’ while later versions portrayed ‘ideal beauty’ (Isaiah [1884], 2.307 n.1).

Here are my thoughts on the matter. While I sympathise with the professor’s desire to move away from overly polished or idealised protraits of Jesus (especially those dictated by modern standards of beauty and acceptability), I cannot agree with his explicit–not to mention, absolute–claim. Moreover, I cannot bring myself to see Isaiah 53.2-3 as ‘biblical evidence’ that Jesus’ everyday appearance was completely unattractive. Why (on both)? Because aside from this solitary reference, there is no biblical testimony concerning the appearance of Jesus. Thus, the professor’s argument is one from silence. (Similarly, the polished and idealised depictions of Jesus are also without biblical foundation. We simply do not have enough information to decide either way). But what about the Isaiah passage?

My concern here is that the text does not speak of the ‘servant’s’ normal, everyday appearance; that’s not the focus of the prophecy. Instead, the context of the passage (i.e. 52.13–53.12) reveals that the focus of the prophecy is absolute exaltation from complete humiliation. Moreover, this larger context shows that the specific (ugly) appearance in question results from a specific series of events later in life and not to genetics. Let me explain.

Isaiah 52.14 contextualises the ugliness of 53.2-3: the unsightly form or appearance of the ‘servant’ results from him being ‘marred more than any man’. Isaiah 53.5 and 7 continue this theme by noting the piercing, crushing, scourging, oppression and ultimate sacrifice of the ‘servant.’ It is from this marred, humiliated and unsightly state that the ‘servant’ will be exalted, and this marred, humiliated and unsightly state that Isaiah 53.2-3 describes; the physical appearance of the servant (on a daily basis) is simply not a matter of concern (cf. John Calvin, Isaiah [1850], 4.114). From the perspective of fulfilled prophecy, Christians understand this Isaiah passage to refer to Jesus’ scourging and crucifixion; it’s not a desription of people’s musings on Jesus’ physical appearance as he wandered around Galilee and Judea.

______________________________________
* Feel free to jump in and give your thoughts on any of these three posts.
** For my non-US friends, read ‘professer’ as ‘lecturer’. I used ‘professor’ because the guy in question is in the US and because I didn’t feel like having ‘lecturer’ written right after ‘lecture.’