Category: Catholic Epistles
Jesus from resurrection to ascension.
What did Jesus do between the resurrection and the ascension?
The Ascension of Christ.
In the Gospel of Mark we have the angelic being (a young man in 16.5) informing the disciples that he will meet them in Galilee.
In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus greets the women himself commanding that they tell the other disciples that he will meet them in Galilee (28.10) confirming the message of the angel they met at the tomb (28.7). The disciples meet Jesus in Galilee and they worship him. Jesus informs them that he has received “all power in heaven and earth” and gives them what we call “the Great Commission” to make disciples of the nations (28.19). Then he informs them that he will be with them “even to the end of the age.”
In the Gospel of Luke Jesus appears to two men on the way to Emmaus. He explains how Messiah had to suffer as he did. He joins them for dinner, blesses the breaking of the bread, becomes apparent then disappears (24.13-35). At another point he randomly appears in the midst of the disciples offering them the opportunity to touch his wounds to see that it was him. Then he shared some fish with them (24.36-42). This is followed by another lesson about himself from Scripture with the promise of “power from on high.” (24.43-49) He leads them “as far as Bethany,” blesses them, and ascends into heaven (24.50-51).
In the Book of Acts the story continues with additional details: Jesus was present for forty days doing wonders and teaching about the Kingdom of God, he commanded that the disciples wait in Jerusalem until the promise arrives which he clarifies is the coming Spirit, he tells them that they will be his witnesses, and he ascends into heaven (1.1-9).
In the Gospel of John Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. She thinks he is the gardener before he says her name and she recognizes him. She tries to cling to him but he says he must go to the Father (20.11-18). Jesus appears to his disciples randomly in a closed room and he offers the disciple Thomas the opportunity to verify his identity by touching his wounds (20.19-29). Our last scene with Jesus is on the shores of Galilee where he appears, tells the disciples how to catch fish, eats a meal with them, and has a long chat with the Apostle Peter about his future (chapter 21).
The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15.5-7 that Jesus was seen by Cephas (Peter), then the twelve, then five hundred disciples at once, then his brother James, then the rest who were called “apostles,” then to Paul himself “as one untimely born” which appears to have been after the ascension (at least the Book of Acts outlines it). This passage alone does not divide between Jesus’ appearances before the ascension and afterward, though Paul’s unique designation seems to imply that he saw his encounter with Jesus to be unique, so maybe this means the others saw Jesus before his ascension? In Galatians 2.9 he calls James, Cephas (Peter), and John “pillars” which may be further indication of their primary position as post-resurrection witnesses.
What similarities do we see? We find Jesus appearing to women first in all the Gospels, though the list of women are not exactly the same. We find Jesus being difficult to recognize on some occasions. Jesus can appear and disappear like a non-physical being though he eats food and he can be touched like a physical being. He invites people to see the wounds from his crucifixion indicating some sort of continuation between the body pre-resurrection and post-resurrection. He spends time with various groups, often in Galilee, and these visits seems to be “commissioning” like acts. He returns to God the Father in the Lukan and Johannine accounts, which the Pauline Epistles support elsewhere when speaking of his parousia as do the Johannine Epistles when addressing his “appearing.” In the Catholic Epistles (e.g. 2 Peter 3.1-9) this return seems to have become a central doctrine and a return indicates a departure.
Each story contains unique elements. Some things seem assumed (e.g. Luke-Acts is the only work that details the ascension). Overall we are told of a Jesus who is very much like his pre-resurrection self (eating, being touched, scares from wounds) yet very different (hard to recognize, appearing and disappearing, endowed with exceptional power and authority, able to transition into the heavens).
Sundays in the Fourth Gospel: The Word Made Flesh
John 1:14 And the Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us
This verse speaks of event of the Incarnation. Yet, it also speaks of the continual indwelling of the Word within believers. This is bolstered by many references to keeping Jesus’ word(s). Keeping Jesus’ words is connected with the Father and Son making their dwelling place in the believer (John 14:23). A disciple, and thus one who is truly free, is one who continues in Jesus’ word (8:32). Jesus’ word(s) continues to come to believers through the Holy Spirit (14:26).
We must also consider the linguistic argument. More literally, 1:14 may be translated: “And the Logos became flesh and tabernacled in us.” In the Johannine writings, the preposition “in” with a first person pronoun often speaks of “union.” This reading of 1:14 in the sense of a Word-believer unity seems possible.
Thus, the Word not only was made flesh, but the Word continues to dwell in believers. In some sense, the Word is continually embodied in those who are children of God. Believers, continually living in the grace of God, become a living representative of the living Word that dwells within them.
Saturdays in Second Temple Judaism: the sons of God and the daughters of men.
As creepy as this sounds (and as offensive as it is to modern sensibilities) there does seem to be a strong tradition for interpreting Genesis 6.1-3 as having to do with angelic beings having sexual relations with female humans.
There is some speculation in the Jewish tradition regarding this text. The author of 1 Enoch writes, “And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.” (6.1-3a)
In the Testament of Reuben 5.6 (it may have Jewish roots, but it seems likely that it is a Christian document in the form we have it now) the author writes, “Therefore flee fornication, my children, and command your wives and your daughters that they adorn not their heads and their faces; because every woman who acts deceitfully in these things has been reserved for everlasting punishment. For thus they allured the Watched before the flood; and as these continually beheld them, they fell into desire each of the other, and they conceived the act in their mind, and changed themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them in their congress with their husbands; and the women, having in their minds desire toward their apparitions, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven.”
It is possible that both 2 Pet. 2.4 and Jude 6-7 allude to this interpretation. One may also postulate that 1 Cor. 11.1-16, especially v. 10 is influenced by this legend. When Paul begins to speak of the Spirit-Flesh contrast in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians he does not indicate that his juxtaposition has anything to do with angelic beings corrupting humanity.
In a list compiled by Andrew Louth (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament I, 123-124) he quotes Clement of Alexandria and Nemesius of Emesa as also interpreting this passage to be angels
The rivalry between the Apostle Paul and James the Just.
On a message board where I sometimes interact there has been a discussion regarding the canonical status of the Epistle of James. This lead to the oft debated topic of whether or not there was a rivalry between the Apostle Paul and James the Just, or at least strong disagreement. It has inspired me to put down some of my most basic thoughts on the matter.
Did a rivalry exist between the Apostle Paul and James the Just?
I think “rivalry” is too strong a word, but there does seem to have been some tension. When Paul mentions Peter, John, and James as those “reported to be pillars” in Gal. 2.9 it is possible that they were part of Paul’s struggle with Jerusalem over Gentiles in the church. In v. 12 he doesn’t deny that the men who came from Jerusalem, who scared Peter away from table-fellowship with Gentiles, were actually “from James” (ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου). In fact, he seems to assume that they came with his support.
It is very curious that James would spend so much time arguing that we are not justified by faith alone, but rather by works (2.14-26). It is a very strong statement to emphasize that we are not justified by “faith only” (οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον), which is why Martin Luther didn’t like this epistle since he interpreted Paul as arguing for salvation by “faith alone”. Likewise, we should note that James is very, very concerned that people may use the concept of “justification by faith” to justify their abuse of the poor, the orphan, the widow, and the misuse of the tongue intrigues me. When Paul tells the Galatians that he received approval from Jerusalem he mentions that they had one major concern: “They only asked us to remember the poor–the very thing I was also eager to do.” (2.10)
Why was this a concern? I think it is possible that people who knew of Paul’s teaching used it to abuse the oppressed. James saw this and he snapped back at a teaching he may have thought was from Paul. Once Paul clarified matters, once he showed he had no intention of avoiding the second commandment of importance to care for one’s neighbor, the Jerusalem church approved him (at that time).
We know that people did misinterpret Paul (2 Pet. 3.14-16). Paul says so himself indicating some people took his message to mean that we should go on sinning. He says that some have “slanderously reported” that Paul taught that we should do evil so good may come from it (Rom. 3.8). If someone took Paul to say this, and then told James that this was Paul’s message, we should expect a reaction like we find in James’ epistle.
Did they disagree over the doctrine of justification by faith?
I don’t see a disagreement between James and Paul on this matter. I see a disagreement between James’ understanding of Paul and James’ own teaching. I am sure there was likely tension between James and Paul because James is known as being a law adhering, temple visiting Jew. When Josephus recounts James’ martyrdom he says that a Sadducee names Ananus had James put to death for being a law breaker, yet many reacted negatively to this since they understood Ananus’ act to be “unjustified” (Antiquities XX.9.1). If James would have been anything like Paul in his relationship to the Law and the temple there would have been a different response (see Acts 21.27-22.30).
I think people who see a “contradiction” between these two read Paul like a misguided Protestant. Paul never said anything against good works. He critiqued works of the Law coming from the flesh, but everywhere he writes imperatives based on the idea that Christians are called to Spirit-inspired works of faith. Likewise, James does not camp out on whether or not Christians should obey the Sabbath, or eat seafood, or wear clothing made of two types of material. Rather, he challenges the idea that anyone can be justified without being obedient toward God and he uses examples such as caring for the poor, the orphan, and the widow, watching one’s tongue, and not causing division. Paul would affirm all these things.
Whether there was a long standing disagreement between Paul and James that was not resolved is beyond the data available. The author of the Book of Acts seems of the persuasion that the two eventually came to see things eye-to-eye (15.13-35). If the event in Gal. 2.11-14 happened after the council it is intentionally ignored.
Thoughts? Do you see a rivalry between Paul and James? If so, how intense and long lasting do you think it was?
“Caught up together” in 1 Thessalonians 4.17
Um, I think we're in trouble.
I have not used the word “rapture” for some time now when describing the second coming of Christ as it is described in 1 Thess. 4.15-18. In part, I think this has been due to the popular understanding of the word and the subsequent implications. The Left Behind series of fictional novels and other books like The Late, Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey have formulated how the word rapture is understood by the popular imagination. I am not necessarily supporting full abandonment of the word, but it seems damaged enough that it is worth discarding.
This subject was brought up yesterday and I was asked why I didn’t affirm a “rapture” if I did find 1 Thess. 4.17 mentioning us being “caught up together” with the Lord Jesus Christ.
First, as I noted, the popular image of the rapture is escapist. Christians are vacuumed out of the earth into the heavens for a debated period of time. I rejected this.
R.G. Clouse defines the rapture as, “A phrase used by premillennialist to refer to the church being united with Christ at his second coming (from Lat. rapio, “caught up”).” [1] If this all that the doctrine of the rapture entailed then I affirm it, but there are important variants and other assumptions like a defined vision of the “Great Tribulation” that has been further defined than I think Scripture tells us. There are pretribulationist who believe before the time of wrath the church goes into heaven. I don’t see this anywhere to be honest. There are those who think it happens during the time of wrath. Again, I don’t see this anywhere. Then there are those who think the rapture happens at the end of the time of wrath as the saints meet Christ in the air to join him in his final victorious assault upon evil.
As far as that last definition is concerned let me say that (1) I do think the saints meet Christ in the air to welcome him to his rule on earth which includes his victory over evil but (2) I have no opinion of the so-called “time of wrath” so I don’t really feel obligated to speculate in that regard.
Second, it is important to examine the message of 1 Thess. 4.15-18 when pondering this teaching. Let me provide the NASB version here:
As you can see where I made the text bold there are certain elements of this passage that provide some context to what is happening.
“The coming of the Lord” (τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου) is an important concept. The παρουσία is a “coming” and/or an “appearing”. Therefore, it is essential that we realize this testifies to Christ’s return here to earth. Another way of saying this would be to note that he is making himself visible to the physical world.
This concept is shared in the canon. In Acts 1.11. as the disciples stare into heaven the angels tell them that Jesus will return the same way that he went. Christ’s coming back from heaven in v. 16 parallels this idea. Also, in 1 Jn. 3.2 we are told we will be like Christ when he “appears” because then we will see him face-to-face. This seems to express the idea that Christ is present, but not visible. He is ruling, but not “physically” (for lack of a better word).
So we must think of Christ’s return as his appearing. This is his descent back to earth. This is the time when he is made visible. Paul himself describes this event further in 1 Cor. 15.23-27 where he sees our resurrection as being like Christ’s resurrection and it occurs “at his coming” (ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ). Again, we have Paul mentioning the παρουσία.
As we ponder this doctrine from these different angles we see (1) Christ’s returns/appears; (2) it will be the opposite of his ascension; (3) we will be like him because we will see him as he is; (4) in Paul’s language this means for the dead there will be a resurrection occuring just like Jesus’ resurrected. In both 1 Jn 3.2 and 1 Thess. 4.15 there is the assumption that there will be believers who have not died. These believers will go instantaneous change just like the dead who receive new bodies. All will be like Christ.
N.T. Wright sees Phil. 3.20-21 as describing this event as well. [2] This passage reads (NASB):
Don’t misread the statement that our citizenship is “in heaven”. That doesn’t mean we must “go” there to get it. It is obvious that even in this passage, like the others we have mentioned, resurrection is the focus and if resurrection is the focus then we do not regain our bodies to “go”.
So what do we do with the part in 1 Thess. 4.17 where we are “caught up”. It almost seems like resurrection could be so we “go to heaven” where Christ has been. I think this misses Paul’s point and it ignores the Johannine and Lukan contributions to our eschatology that we noted.
The word ἁρπαγησόμεθα does indicate a future event where we are quickly “seized” into the air (hence, the Vulgate rapio and the English rapture). But this does not mean we stay in the air. Again, this is Christ’s “coming”. This is his “descent” from heaven. This is his “appearing”. If there is something known as a “Great Tribulation” then I am convinced Christ’s return would be afterward because when Christ comes we meet him to welcome him and this signifies Christ’s victory over death and evil. Resurrection has occurred.
Wright sees three images behind Paul’s words:
(1) Moses coming down from Sinai where we have a trumpet and a loud voice.
(2) “Daniel 7, in which the persecuted people of God are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up on the clouds to sit with God in glory.”
(3) When emperors visit colonies within the empire and “the citizens of the country would go to meet him at some distance from the city” in order to welcome him as ruler. [3]
We have two intertextual echoes and one historical antecedent that give context to 1 Thess. 4.17. So our being “caught up” to meet Christ has more to do with Dan. 7 imagery of the saints victoriously joining Christ in his descent upon evil as well as the parousia concept in the ancient world of the people of a colony welcoming their ruling emperor. While much more has been written on this subject, and I know this blog post cannot cover it, this provides a bit of a glimpse into why I don’t like “rapture” language (even if postribulationist see my views sympathetically).
My take on the passage is that it refers to our meeting Christ in the air to welcome him to his earthly rule. If this is a “rapture”, fine, as long as it is not confused with the popular idea.
__________
[1] R.G. Clouse, “Rapture of the Church” in Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. 983.
[2] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, 131.
[3] Ibid. 132.
I Say Dumb Things
Yesterday I said some dumb things. A very famous evangelical pastor with strong political leanings was mentioned. I made jest about him, mocking his public image, and what I understood to be another fundamentalist eager to enforce his views on others via governmental power. It so happens that one of the people present was a family friend.
He explained to me all the good things this man had done in his life. The projects for the poor, the funds he gave to single women with children, the many people who have benefited from the university he founded, and his legacy. He was described as a man who made people feel important and who came across as different that the man I saw on the news.
Ouch.
I wrote an apology, but I guess that hardly removes the foot from my mouth. Sometimes it is hard to remember that those we see as embarrassing, misguided, or even purely antithetical to our values are still human. Their stories are more than we know. This is easier said than done and I learned once again that my flapping tongue is all to dangerous.
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. (James 1.26)
Meaning = Use: Moving Beyond the Impasse of Lukan/Pauline Pneumatological Language
Something made sense to me today in a way that it had not made sense prior. In my philosophy class we were talking about Ludwig Wittgenstein’s emphasis on the “meaning” of a word being determined by the “use” of a word. This is something we know but it sometimes slips our minds. When I say “It is cool outside, I’d wear a jacket” and when I say, “It is cool outside” and you look through the window to see a theme mark with some trendy murals you know I mean two different things even though I am using the same wording.
When it comes to Scripture many of us have realized something like this when we read the Paul’s use of “justification by faith” and James’ use of similar language. Some has proposed these two were against each other but we must remember meaning = use. What Paul is addressing is the opposite of what James is addressing and therefore the language should not be seen as meaning one and the same thing.
I have heard people propose this for the Pauline and Lukan usages of “Spirit-filled” language, but I have continued to bang my head against an exegetical wall trying to figure out how the two work together. Now it clicked for me. We do not have to deny that Luke saw people as being “filled with the Spirit” in a way that accompanied particular signs because we think this contradicts Paul. No, Paul’s usage is different and while he would recognize particular phenomenon as being the work of the Spirit he wouldn’t equate that with the infilling of the Spirit necessary for salvific resurrection which all who place faith in Christ experience.
I know some people will say “duh”, and in retrospect I think some comments on this very blog tried to point this out to me, but it is just now falling into place for me.
Matthew 28.19 and/or Acts 2.38
In Matthew 28.19 we have Jesus commanding his disciples to go into the entire world baptizing “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. In Acts 2.38 we have Jews asking the Apostle Peter what must be done now that they realize they have killed their Messiah and they are told, “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”. Do we have a contradiction? Should we read one through the other? Do we have two forms to the “one baptism” that the Apostle Paul mentions (Eph. 4.4-5)?
In the early church we see two trajectories. One is evident in works like the early Christian document the Didache:
Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then “baptize” in running water, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (7.1)
It is obvious that some early Christians seemed to understand the wording of Mt. 28.19 as the common tradition. There is some discussion as to whether or not this was a later addition to the Didache but there doesn’t seem enough textual evidence to doubt it. It is more than likely that the writer of the Didache came from a community familiar with the First Gospel.
On the other hand we see frequent references to being “baptized into Christ” throughout the Pauline epistles. Others see reference to baptism in places like James 2.7 where Christians are chastised for honoring the rich over the poor despite the rich being blasphemous against “the honorable name by which you were called”. It is argued that this likely is the name “Jesus Christ” or some variant.
There are some who have argued that baptism in “the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is the only legitimate baptism. You can see this type of thinking evolving strongly around the time of the Arian controversies. For the most part it is because being baptized in the “name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” indicated you recognized these three as divine and one. While Christological controversies were on the horizon the early debates regarding Trinity resulted in one emerging as the most used because it sent an additional message in a post-Arius context.
While the language of Mt. 28.19 has historical preference (not as in “earliest” but as in most traditionally used) it is my contention we should understand why this is so. It may be that it is still worth preferring this language because we still have serious doctrinal controversies today. The confession of Mt. 28.19 says a lot and it puts one in a continuum with the church over many years.
Nevertheless, I don’t see any reason to discredit the Acts 2.38 language. I was baptized using this language and I have never personally felt obligated to be rebaptized. The one concern that I have heard expressed is that the baptismal language was used in order to be sectarian. There are some who choose the language of Acts 2.38 in order to make a distinction from other Christians who mostly use Mt. 28.19. While I understand this can be problematic I know that as a pre-teen when I was baptized it was not in order to be sectarian, it was to place faith in Christ, and I think this is the point of baptism.
That being said there are those who think Mt. 28.19 must be interpreted through Acts 2.38. It is argued that the “name” (singular) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is “Jesus”. I have seen the proof-texting used to make this point but I find it wanting. What we have is the text and it says “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. Likewise, we have what seems to be as sufficient evidence that the name “Jesus” is that of the Son. The Father is never called “Jesus” (or Jesus the Father) and the same is true of the Holy Spirit.
It is my position that those who argue for an either/or don’t have any real sufficient reason to do so. We have a trajectory using the language “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. We have a trajectory using the language “Jesus”, “Lord Jesus”, “Jesus Christ”, or “Lord Jesus Christ”. What we have in common is (1) the act of baptism is a natural faith response, (2) the object of faith is the God who is Father, Son, and Spirit who has been made known to us through Jesus, and (3) all Christians participate in this act.
There was once a time when some Christian communities were informed by reading the First Gospel. There was once a time when some Christians were influenced by the writing found in Luke-Acts. If we must choose between one or the other we have to say there was a time when one Christian community was mislead because they only had one document with one approach to the language to be used at baptism. While the gospels came together as a corpus fairly “quickly” we can still use “quickly” in reference to decades. Also, the four-fold gospels corpus didn’t include Acts so many people who read the four-fold gospels would have only had the wording of Mt. 28.19 available which is likely why documents like the Didache repeat it.
What we must remember is the when the Apostle Paul spoke of “one baptism” it is unlikely he meant one way of saying something over the one being baptized. In context we have the issue of “unity” being addressed–not baptismal language. When we read “one baptism” this is not a polemic against another, wrong baptism. It is a reminder we all share in the one baptism like we share in the one Spirit.
So does the language of one of these passages trump the other? No, I don’t think so. We find both used in early Christendom and both found there way into our canon of Scripture. I see no reason for an either/or when we likely have a both/and.
The Basic Definition of Religion (Blog a Qur’an Day)
Today I am participating in the “Blog a Qur’an Day” with Andrew Jones and a long list of Christian bloggers. On this day it is easy to demonize Muslims for the terrorism of 9/11, but we must remember that fanaticism is not the only voice of a religion. We Christians have our fanatic fundamentalist and we do not let them serve as our spokesperson. It is only fair to acknowledge with moderate Muslims that there is a different face of Islam that is pious, loving, and worthy of being called our neighbors. So this is why I am blogging a portion of the Qur’an. I am doing it to show that just like the Jewish-Christian Scriptures have some areas that make us blush along with other areas that are beautiful so the Qur’an has many areas that all Christians can affirm with an “Amen!”
I have chosen Surat Al-Ma’un (Sura 107, the “small kindness”) which says the following:
Sura 107
1. Have you seen the one who denies the Recompense (the Judgment)?
2. For that is the one who drives away the orphan.
3. And does not encourage the feeding of the poor
4. So woe to those who pray
5. But are heedless of their prayer-
6. Those who make show [of their deeds]
7. And withhold simple assistance [Al-Ma'un: small kindness]
Christians may hear echoes of Jesus our Messiah and James the Just in this Sura. First, we are reminded of Jesus’ words when he said, “If therefore you are presenting your offering on the alter, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the alter and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Mt. 5.23-24) Jesus is saying that sacrifice is secondary to reconciliation. If a religion is worth its salt it will result in loving actions toward one’s brother or sister.
James, the brother of our Lord, wrote something similar: “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep one unstained by the world.” (1.27) As with Sura 107 so with James the Just: if you claim to be religious the ideal picture of piety is care for those who are in greatest need. Religious claims void of this kind of love for other humans is hypocrisy at best. On 9/11 let us Christians and Muslims remember that while we may disagree on very important issues this is no excuse for hateful actions toward one another. Let us remember that God will sort it all out in the end and that we are responsible to act in the knowledge of God’s will that we have been given.
Translating δίκαιον in Various French Versions of 1 John 2.1
In a previous post I discussed how the translation of δίκαιον in 1 Jn. 2.1 in the Louis Segond French Bible influenced how I understood the text in contrast to several English translations (see here). For most English translators Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father because he is “the righteous”. Since in English “righteousness” indicates moral uprightness more than it does legal justice the implication of the translation seems to be that Jesus is our advocate because of his moral perfection on behalf of our immorality.
In the Segond translation he is called le juste. While I am a novice at reading French (actually, I have just begun) it came across to me as more of a legal justice. Jesus is our advocate with the Father and he is trustworthy in this role because he is just. In other words, we have no fear of misrepresentation–Jesus will be a (more than) fair advocate.
I wondered aloud if the French translation wanted to have the same connotations as most English translations if vertueux would have been preferable since it has a moral flavor to it. I decided I would look at some other French translations to see if any depart from Segond. Of all the translations to which I have access–BFC, DRB, FBJ, NEG, and TOB along with LSG (Segond)–there is a unanimous use of something related to juste.
I am wondering if there is anyone out there will a solid understanding of the French language who can tell me whether or not juste would be read by a native French speaker as indicating legislative justice or moral righteousness. It may be that such a division would not exist in the mind of a French speaker. I do not know. If you are out there I would appreciate your feedback.
One or Two Benefits to a Delayed Parousia
The other day I was thinking about the apologetical difficulties of a delayed parousia of Christ. It bothered me that Jesus’ promise to return has taken more than two millennia. It seems kind of ridiculous to believe this event is going to happen when it seems many thought it would take place nineteen hundred years ago.
Then it came to me: I am thankful for the delay in the Second Coming. Of course, if it happened tomorrow, I would welcome it. I echo the author of the Book of Revelation (22.20) who responded to Christ’s promise to return with the words, “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!”. On the other hand, as someone reading Scripture in 2010, the words of 2 Pet. 3.9 obtain additional meaning when the author writes, ” The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” May we add to this that God not only wants to give as many people alive today an opportunity at mercy, but God wants to bring mercy to as many people in history as possible as well.
So what is one of the greatest benefits of a delayed parousia? My life! God’s patience, God’s sovereignty that does not act in response to finite human criticisms, outlasts all those who mock year after year after year the hope of the Christian faith that Christ will return. God knows the time and He will not forfeit His plans for humanity. I am thankful for the patience of God who has brought history this far in order that even more of us may find the Kingdom.
The Implications of Translation Decisions: 1 John 2.1 in English and French
I have been attempting to read through 1 John (or should I say 1 Jean) in the Louis Segond translation of the French Bible in order to gain more familiarity with the language for my theological French course. I know this is not a brilliant observation but it occured to me (a novice) that the translation decision has an important impact on how I understood what I was reading.
In 1 Jn 2.1 most English translations render the Greek word δίκαιον as “righteous”:
…Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)
…Jesus Christ the righteous. (NASB)
…Jesus Christ the righteous. (NKJV)
…Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. (NIV)
And even more descriptive:
…Jesus Christ, the one who is truley righteous. (NLT)
I know the English word “righteous” has a broad range much like the Greek δίκαιον. Both can mean anything from godly or moral to just or in the right. For whatever reason when an English translation decides to use the word “righteous” it makes me think in moral terminology with less of a legal emphasis.
Therefore, in English, I .tend to think of this passage as saying Jesus Christ is our advocate before the Father and his trustworthiness is dependent upon his moral uprightness. When I read this verse in the French Bible it says “… Jésus Christ le juste.” I am unsure about the etymological range of juste but it seems that the word vertueux would have been chosen, since it has connotations refering to virtue and moral goodness, if the same translation theory was being implemented.
When I read it in French I am inclined to think of this passage as saying Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father and he is just; therefore, we will not be misrepresented but we can count on Jesus to be our faithful representative.
I said all that to say that translation matters. Likewise, our presuppositions about the meaning of words matters. How we render the text impacts the way it is understood (which again, I know is obvious)!
The Second Coming Should Be Hopeful
The Resurrection
A few days ago a young lady that my wife knew from her childhood in Texas was killed in a car wreck. It has shocked many who now must wrestle with the emotions connected to the death of someone who only reached the age of eighteen. Death is usually devastating; it is harder to swallow when it comes so early.
Today my wife shared a song with me sung by Brooke Fraser/Hillsong United. It is a song titled “Soon” about the coming/appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is very hopeful presenting this event as our great hope. I can’t help but think that the authors of Scripture felt the same way whenever they wrote about the parousia of Christ.
Sure, for those who rebel against God there is an element of fear. I do not intend on minimizing that. Nevertheless, it seems to me that many preachers have a good grasp of how to preach the fearful element of the Second Coming. Some misguided eschatologies (esp. some so-called “rapture” eschatology) act as if God will suck all the good out of creation before unleashing devestating wrath. I do not deny wrath; I do deny the picture presented.
The wrath of God is a purifying wrath. It removes evil. For all followers of Christ this should be promising. We should want our righteous God to make the world right again. One of those evils is death itself. At the Second Coming all of creation will be restored (Rom. 8-18-23). We will be raised from the dead or transformed (as it says in Rom. 8.11 and 1 Jn 3.2). God will reign.
Preachers, tell people about our hope–one of restoration, renewal, resurrection, and righteousness. If this scares them at least it is not a scare tactic–it is likely the Holy Spirit. What we must avoid is sermon after sermon that cause the faithful to fear his coming. We must avoid anything that will distory the hope that my wife has today of seeing her friend one fine day. Rather, our churches should experience the joy of the author of Revelation who cried out, “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!” at his promise to return (22.20). The second coming is hopeful, let us present it that way.
I’m a Horrible Apologist. Is that OK?
I enjoy a good conversation with someone who does not affirm the Christian religion. Many of my friends and family are atheist or agnostics. On the other hand, I have noticed that I make for a terrible apologist! I have participated in several conversations throughout the blogosphere over the last couple of weeks that have left me mentally exhausted (e.g. see here, here, and here). There are some people who can go back and forth with a skeptic. I am not one of those people!
I think everyone should be a Christian but I am not very good at arguing for this end. I think the Genesis narrative is vague enough for one to affirm current scientific findings, especially in regards to evolution, but I cannot prove this to be true or false. I think the gospel is very, very believable, but I do not have enough training in philosophy to go toe to toe for very long in arguments over epistemology. I think that experiencing the Holy Spirit can be foundational to a confession of faith. I cannot prove that experiencing the Holy Spirit is any better than other paranormal religious experiences. I think the Scriptures are the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. We could spend all day arguing but I probably cannot prove to you that the Qur’an is inferior.
Is this OK? I know we are told to “make a defense to anyone who ask you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3.15) but I am more than aware that my reasons often prove unsatisfying to most skeptics. I can spend all day studying Christian theology and biblical exegesis, but I cannot prove to you that you should think any more of these subjects than you do of reading Kant or Foucault.
If I had more time I would try to study these subjects more in depth, but I have this sneaking suspicion that it wouldn’t change much. In the end I would still be a Christian and in the end I would still be able to go so far with my argument before I had to agree to disagree. Is my attitude about this all wrong? Should I care about being able to defend my faith with better arguments in the fields of philosophy, history, and science?
Anderson on Revelation – Session 3
- [For more information about this series, see this post: Paul Anderson to Teach at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.]
- [For a summary of the first part, see this post: Paul Anderson on Revelation - Session 1.]
- [For a summary of the second part, see this post: Anderson on Revelation - Session 2.]
Last Wednesday (March 10), Paul Anderson presented on two of four Johannine crises that lay in the background of the Johannine literature, particularly the Epistles and Revelation. Before I report on this, I would like to back up to Session 2 and make some additions/corrections.
In Session 2, Anderson noted four threats in history which the Johannine writings were seeking to address. Anderson gave a few evidences for these. I already noted the compositional evidence and the Epistles. In addition to those, here are some other evidences for these threats: 1) two-edition hypothesis of John, 2) echoes from the Apocalypse, 3) letters of Igantius, and 4) John 6 and traces of history. In regard to the two-edition hypothesis of John, the first edition (namely the Gospel of John without the Prologue, ch. 6, chs. 15-17, and ch. 21) addressed synagogue tensions and presented Jesus as the Messianic king. With the additional material added in later to form the second and final edition of John, the Gospel addressed gnostic tendencies and ecclesiology. The letters of Ignatius provide a corroborative witness to these threats. I am thankful to Anderson for providing me with his outline for all the lectures.
Coming to Session 3, Anderson began by addressing a question on his two-edition hypothesis and the interfluence between John and the other Gospels. He has allowed me to share with us an outline of his Bi-Optic Hypothesis and below I have reproduced the interfluence chart found therein:
A Charting of Johannine-Synotpic Interfluential Relations
Of note are the following: 1) Markan and Johannine traditions have influence on each other, 2) Johannine tradition has influence on Q and the Lukan tradition, and 3) after the first written edition of John, the continued preaching of John interacts with the Matthew’s Gospel until the production of John’s final edition.
Now onto the two crises that Anderson covered. These were:
- T
he Synagogue and Antichrist threat (1 John 2:18-25) - Emperor Worship and its Implications: “the Second Beast” and “666″ (Revelation 13)
Because I have already mentioned the antichrists more than a few times, I only want to point out that the message here is: Abide with Jesus and his community and love one another. With regard to the second crisis, Anderson mentioned that the topic of emperor worship is a pressing one in Revelation. Underlying this are the emperors Nero (reigned 54-68 CE) and Domitian (reigned 81-96 CE), both known persecutors of Christians. Because of the synagogue threat, in which Christian Jews were expelled due to their perceived ditheism, Christians were vulnerable because they were no longer under the religious protection afforded to Judaism. This left the Christians open to persecution as the Roman government did not take kindly to any “new” religious movement. Christians were also the recipients of persecution due to the institution of emperor worship. As Christianity became predominantly Gentile in population, the potential for emperor worship grew. Perhaps Gentiles were being persuaded to just go through the motions of offering incense and giving homage to the emperor without really meaning it; perhaps some Gentiles saw nothing wrong with syncretization—after all, the Pantheon had many gods and Christ could be one god while the emperor could be the other. For Gentiles, the threat of persecution could cause them to reason in this manner. Revelation would be a corrective and a guide for those facing such temptation.
James McGrath pointed out in a comment on my first summary that “666″ was the number for Nero; most scholars would agree. There is a numerological system in Hebrew that allows for each letter of Nero to be assigned a numerical value: when added together, the number is 666. Some manuscripts have “616″ because of the deletion of a final letter of a word that can but does not always have to be present in the original language. Because 666 is applied to Nero as the mark, then the Beast would be reference to Nero and his fierce persecution of Christians. When Domitian came upon the scene, he was just as fierce as Nero, if not more fierce. Domitian then becomes the second Beast in Revelation. The number 666 also becomes applied to him. The imagery in Revelation is meant to address the issue of imperial religion.
The message in Revelation for the original recipients in this crisis would be two-fold: 1) do not bow down or worship, contra to “all the world” doing so; and 2) those who overcome will be recorded in the Book of Life.
