Saturday, July 23, 2016

Jesus as the "Son of Man"

The "Son of Man" discussion is one of the more vigorous in the whole of New Testament studies.  No small amount of literature on the phrase “son of man” [Hebrew ben ʾādām (בֶּן אָדָם); Aramaic bar ʾĕnāš (בַּר אֱנָשׁ); Greek (ho) huios (tou) anthrōpou (ὁ υἱος του ἁνθρωπου)]  was produced over the course of the twentieth century. The twenty-first century is continuing this trend and will likely produce many more journal articles, monographs, and book chapters.

Essentially, "Son of Man" was Jesus’ favorite self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels. As noted, the denoted name arises from the Hebrew ben-˒āḏām and Aramaic bar ˒enāš “son of man,” a Semitic idiom for an individual human being or for mankind in general, particularly as distinguished from God (e.g., Num. 23:19; Ps. 8:4; Ezek. 2:1).

At Dan. 7:13, the phrase “son of man” occurs and is likely a title for the people of Israel considered corporately or for their angelic representative in the heavenly court (cf. “the saints of the Most High,” v. 18). The Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 37–71) and 2 Esdras 13 both draw on Daniel’s use of the title, viewing it as an expression for a specific eschatological redeemer figure. Whereas the influence of Dan. 7:13 on New Testament use of the expression is unquestioned, 2 Esdras 13 and probably the Similitudes of Enoch are too late to have had any such influence. Jesus’ use of the term may have arisen from its use in Aramaic as an oblique substitute for the first person singular pronoun as much as from the use of the term in Daniel. Discussions on this are vigorous.

Indeed, the variety in Jesus’ use of the term suggests that no single influence was dominant in the meaning of the term as he used it, that his own creativity played a significant role, and that part of this creativity was to bring ideas from the Servant Songs of Isaiah (esp. Isa. 52:13–53:12) into the “son of man” concept. The uses of the term in the Synoptic Gospels fall into three broad categories. 

Jesus uses it with respect to himself in describing his activity and the exercise of his authority on earth (Matt. 13:37; Mark 2:10, 28; 10:45; Luke 7:34; 9:58; 12:10; 19:10). 

He uses it in predicting his suffering and death (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33). He uses it when speaking of his eschatological return and rule (e.g., Matt. 10:23; 19:28; 25:31; Mark 8:38; 14:62; Luke 17:22–30; 21:36).

All three categories of “son of man” sayings originated with Jesus and are plausible within the framework of his own anticipation of his rejection, suffering, and vindication.

The gospel of John uses “the Son of man” for Jesus in relation to John’s christology of the descending and ascending redeemer (John 3:13; 6:62; cf. 1:51; 5:27; 6:27) and in relation to the death of Jesus, viewed as his glorification (3:14; 12:23, 34; 13:31). In the end, evidence suggests that “the Son of man” functions as a self-designation of some kind for Jesus Christ; though it never became a way for other people to refer to Jesus, and it thus played no part in the confessional and doctrinal statements of the early church, unlike “Christ,” “Lord” and “Son of God.”

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Dead In Your Transgressions



And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:1–10).
"You were dead in your transgressions" is a Jewish way of speech; its force is nicely illustrated by a midrash (Jewish commentary) on Ecclesiastes 9:5 which speaks of ‘the wicked who even in their lifetime are called dead’. Those bound in sin are doomed to death, and so already belong to its realm; the very thing they think of as ‘life’ is but a foretaste of death, because it is without God (cf. Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14). 

While Paul elsewhere teaches that this state of affairs is the result of sin, that is not the point here; rather the state in your transgressions and sins is what characterized their former existence. These things were the corrupt fruit of their ‘death’. In verse 2 Paul attributes this life marked by sins chiefly to two related factors—the influence of this world (i.e. the present fallen creation and the forces it generates in society, seen as standing in rebellion against God and in contrast to the ‘new age’ or ‘new creation’ awaited), and the influence of Satan, described here as the ruler of the kingdom of the air. The air denoted the lower heavens, closest to the earth, and was often thought to be the abode of the evil spiritual beings. 

The idea of Satan being at work in those who are disobedient could all sound like a determinism to evil for which we are not responsible, but verse 3 puts the blame equally fairly on our own rebellious nature with its corrupt desires and thinking. All this made us what Paul calls ‘children of wrath’ (NRSV); that is, those condemned to suffer God’s holy anger directed against sin.

What God in his love and mercy has actually done for us, then, comes as a stark and breathtaking contrast to the doom verse 3 envisages, and so dramatically reveals the nature of the power of God at work in us. Verse 5 portrays it as a resurrection power that transfers us from ‘death’ to ‘life’. 

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Mark Jones' Bibliography on the Trinity

Over at his blog, Mark Jones has published a useful annotated bibliography. In terms of the Trinity it will be helpful to see what the church has taught over the years and why it is of great importance. Links and comments below were generated by Dr. Jones:

Annotated Trinity Bibliography
Introductory
Donald Fairbarn, Life in the Trinity (IVP). This is a wonderful introduction to Christian theology in general, drawing largely on four patristic theologians.
Fred Sanders, Deep Things of God (Crossway). Shows how the trinity permeates all of our faith and practice.
Intermediate
I'd also add Warren Smith's essay on the Fourth Century in the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity as an intermediate level intro. Any pastors or profs who are not up to speed could read that and get up to speed J. Warren Smith, The Trinity in the fourth century fathers in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity (OUP).
Fred Sanders, The Triune God (New Studies in Dogmatics for Zondervan, forthcoming this fall). Offers an account of trinitarian exegesis, especially of OT.
Gilles Emery, The Trinity (CUA). Best intro to catholic doctrine and its terms.
Advanced
Joseph Pohle/Arthur Preuss, The Divine Trinity (Scholars Choice). If Peter Escalante says this is really good it must be because Peter Escalante only recommends the best.
Gregory Nazianzus, On God and Christ (St Vladimir's Seminary Press). Includes his five theological orations and a couple key letters. Single most significant patristic starting point.
Basil, Against Eunomius (CUA). Key texts from later fourth century father.
Augustine, The Trinity (New City Press). Most full account of the trinity in the late patristic era.
Gilles Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (OUP). Best introduction to medieval and patristic terminology and distinctions.
Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea (Baker). Helpful history of key figures and moves.
John Webster, God Without Measure, Volume One: God and the Works of God (T & T Clark). Puts trinitarian thinking to use in both talking of God in himself and God in his works. Essays on "eternal generation," "it was the will of the Lord to bruise him," and "place of Christology in ST" are especially significant.
Matthew Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology (Blackwell). Engages narrative theology and post-metaphysical thought of the last 75 years by retrieving the exegetical and metaphysical account of Aquinas.
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy (OUP). See also HTR review symposium edited by Sarah Coakley. The best map of fourth century debates. The final chapter maps issues of scripture and tradition methodologically as well.
Scott Swain, The God of the Gospel (IVP). Interacts with evangelical historicist approaches to theology and economy in Jenson and McCormack (pt 1) and then offers a catholic and Reformed alternative (pt 2).
Wesley Hill, Paul and the Trinity (Eerdmans). Shows how NT appropriation of language of "lord" not only applies it to Jesus but also shows his "relations" to Father and Spirit, so that NT not only teaches a "high Christology" but a trinitarian Christology.
Allen/Swain, Christian Dogmatics (Baker Academic) - first four chapters address these issues reg. "knowledge of God," "divine triunity," "divine attributes," and "covenant of redemption."
Also crucial here are essays by Steven Boyer, “Articulating Order: Trinitarian Discourse in an Egalitarian Age” (Pro Ecclesia), Keith Johnson “Augustine, Eternal Generation, and Evangelical Trinitarianism” (Trinity Journal, Fall 2011), and Scott Swain/Michael Allen “The Obedience of the Eternal Son” (IJST, March 2013).
Boethius, "The Trinity Is One God and Not Three Gods," (Kindle) is a useful exposition of the logical foundations of the doctrine esp. in relation to Aristotle's ten categories of predication. But it is definitely not intro level--he says explicitly that it's for a very small audience (indeed, an audience of one! And that audience of one is not God but his father-in-law, so...).
Additional Titles

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Numbers 25:13 and Jealousy for God

Number 25

25 While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. 2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4 And the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people and hang them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.”

6 And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping in the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand 8 and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped. 9 Nevertheless, those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.

10 And the Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, 13 and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’”

14 The name of the slain man of Israel, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu, chief of a father's house belonging to the Simeonites. 15 And the name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, who was the tribal head of a father's house in Midian.

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 “Harass the Midianites and strike them down, 18 for they have harassed you with their wiles, with which they beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the chief of Midian, their sister, who was killed on the day of the plague on account of Peor.”


If the story was read today it would read, "Moab Seduces Israel."

It shocks us. For the readers of the book of Numbers, in the chapters leading up to Numbers 25, we have been on the mountain heights with Balaam, surveying Israel from a distance and hearing about how blessed they are. In Balaam’s oracle they are “a people dwelling alone, and not counting itself among the nations” (Num. 23:9). They see neither misfortune nor misery, for the Lord their God is with them (Num. 23:21). No sorcery or divination could succeed against Israel, for the Lord had blessed them, and he would not change his mind (23:20, 23). These people are “the upright,” among whom it would be a privilege to die (Num. 23:10). Out of this chosen nation, the glorious messianic King would rise to bring salvation for his people and judgment on all of God’s enemies (Num. 24:17–24). This is the glorious, ideal picture of Israel.

In Numbers 25, however, we descend from the lofty heights of Balaam’s prophecy to the harsh reality of the defiled people of God in the valley below. Far from being “the upright” who remain separate from the nations, the men of Israel engaged in sexual immorality with Moabite women (Num. 25:1). This initial sin led naturally to the further step of joining in the Moabites’ sacrifices and entering into a covenant with the god of Moab, Baal of Peor (Num. 25:2-3). What is more, this incident involved more than a little compromise on the part of one or two individuals. It was “the people” as a whole who went after Moabite women; it was “the people” who partook of the sacrifices and worshiped their gods; all “Israel” joined themselves to Baal of Peor (Num. 25:1–3).

Moses makes it worse by only selectively disciplining individuals. As so often happens when there is no discipline among God’s people, sin became more and more flagrant. In fact, so confident that no one is really going to charge and enforce discipline, in front of the eyes of everyone an Israelite man—the son of a leader of the Simeonites (Num. 25:14)—brought a Midianite woman to his family to consummate their marital relationship. Clearly he had discerned that there was no willingness among the leadership to enforce the death penalty that had been announced for those who linked themselves with the Midianites and their gods; so he flaunted his sin in front of everyone. He thought he could sin boldly and there would be no consequences for his actions.

But someone was there who was jealous for the glory of God.

Phinehas took a spear, followed the man and his new Midianite wife into the tent, and ran both of them through with it. He thus checked or stopped the plague which had already claimed 24,000 lives. Phinehas could not stand the status quo. He was consumed with the glory and holiness of God. And Yahweh clearly approved of Phinehas’ actions since He promised him a covenant of peace and perpetual priesthood. He had made atonement for the sins of the sons of Israel.

This passage reminds us that discipline pursued out of a passionate zeal for God’s honor is vital to the spiritual health of the community. When Moses and the other leaders in the community failed to act, the judgment on the people of God was profound. Only when one young man stood up and acted to do what the Lord had said and to remove the blight from the community was there a change in the people’s fortunes. It is important to note that Phinehas was not acting as a private citizen in executing God’s judgment. There is no support here for independent action against anyone we may believe to have offended God. For example, there is no warrant in this passage for bombing abortion clinics or shooting evil men. As the son of Eleazar, Phinehas was in charge of the Levites who were responsible for guarding the sanctuary against defilement (1 Chronicles 9:20; Numbers 3:32). Taking action to defend the sanctity of the camp was thus part of his job description, and he fulfilled his duties faithfully as an officer of the people of God in dealing with this particular abomination.

Of course, an individual Phinehas here and there cannot atone permanently for a people whose entire history was a long series of compromises. Throughout the Old Testament we see this same truth over and over: the people who were chosen by God for blessing repeatedly turned that blessing into a curse through their rebellion and idolatry.

We are no different.

For Israel (and us) to be saved, they needed something more than a little touching up around the margins of their lives. They needed something better than moral instruction: this people had by now already had God’s Law for forty years, and they were no better off than the day when they first received it. Clearly, the Law is unable to transform us. What they and we both need is a covenantal substitute, a new Israel, who completely fits the description of the brochure and thereby earns God’s blessing on behalf of his people. We need someone who is always righteous, always faithful, always true.

That new Israel, according to the New Testament, is Jesus Christ, the one who came and lived the only life that has ever truly been free from spiritual adultery. His zeal for the Lord’s house certainly sometimes made him an uncomfortable companion. In John 2 he made a whip of cords in order to drive out those who had turned the temple into a marketplace (John 2:17). His disciples immediately thought of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for your house has consumed me.” Yet it was that same zeal for God’s glory that would ultimately take him all the way to the cross in the ultimate judgment on sin. There, instead of piercing the guilty sinners and putting them to a deserved death, God pierced his own innocent Son in our place. Through his death, Jesus made atonement for all of his people. By pouring out his anger on his own Son, God turned his anger away from us, enabling us to live under his blessing. Our sin was put to death in Jesus, and his zeal for God’s glory was credited to us, making us acceptable in God’s sight.

Jesus Christ is the greater and better Phineas. He was jealous for the glory of God and gave His life, a ransom for many, that we might glorify the Lord of Glory by the sacrificial gift of His own righteousness. He imputed righteousness to us that we might glorify Him.

Let us then be jealous for the glory of God.


Friday, July 1, 2016

Galatians 5:4 "They are outside of God's grace..."


Harrowing words.
"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5:4)
In this passage, Paul narrows down and hones in on an important part of his audience and now addresses those among the Galatians who have already accepted the principle of winning God’s approval by following the Law. This is made clear by "you who would be." Other modern translations give the impression that Paul is still talking to all the Galatians, but the context does not support this interpretation.

To be put right with God by obeying the Law is literally “to be justified by the law” (compare the expressions used in Gal 2:16 and Galatians 3:11). In this context those of you who would be put right with God may be rendered as “those of you who try to get right with God,” “… put yourselves right with God,” or “… become right with God.” 

Those who put their trust in the Law as a means of winning God’s approval have cut themselves off from Christ. The verb here is used by Paul elsewhere in this letter (Galatians 3:17) to mean “nullify” or “make ineffective” (compare also Paul’s use of this verb in Rom 7:2, where it relates to “being freed from a marriage bond”), and so here it would mean to be separated from Christ (NEB “your relation with Christ is completely severed”). That means that they are no longer in Christ, that is, in union and fellowship with him.

Have cut yourselves off from Christ may thus be rendered as “have completely separated yourselves from Christ.” This meaning may be expressed idiomatically in some languages as “have destroyed your bond with Christ,” or “have destroyed what ties you to Christ.”

Furthermore, they are outside God’s grace (literally, “you have fallen away from grace”). Grace here may refer either to God’s or Christ’s grace, but most translators prefer the former interpretation. So here also as in Galatians 1:6, grace includes the components of undeserved love and free gift. To obey the Law in order to win God’s approval is to turn one’s back on God’s gift of sonship. The expression “you have fallen away” should be understood, not in the sense that grace has been taken away from them, but in the sense that they have turned their backs on it. One may also say “you have put yourself in a place where God’s goodness cannot find you,” “… where God cannot be good to you,” or “… show you his goodness.”

Paul’s primary point in this passage, as throughout the letter, is that law and grace cannot be mixed. As a means to salvation they are totally incompatible and mutually exclusive. To mix law with grace is to obliterate grace. For a believer to start living again under the law to merit salvation is, in fact, to reject salvation by grace. Contrary to the teaching of the Judaizers, to add circumcision and other works of the law to what Christ accomplished by grace is not to raise one’s spiritual level but to severely lower it. Legalism does not please God but offends Him. It does not bring a person closer to God but rather drives him away.