There is much in the news today of relevance to the study of Jesus. For example, there is now an article in the NY Times about the money and dealings which led to the National Geographic even having the Gospel of Judas. It seems not only Judas, but also those who bought and sold his Gospel had money issues. Here is the link to the NY Times story-- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/science/13judas.html?ei=5065&en=7e8f2d9b53f573f7&ex=1145592000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
I am more concerned however with James Tabor's book which made the cover story this week in U.S. News and World Report, because Tabor is actually talking about first century documents, namely the NT and a theory of Christian origins. In my judgment his work is far more important than these other so called revelations. Because of this I am going to post a lengthy critique of the book in several parts to help the audience read through and weed through the book itself.
THE ROYAL LINE OF JESUS?
For a moment when one reads the title of James Tabor’s latest book, The Jesus Dynasty, (N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, 2006) one may be forgiven for thinking this is a book which grows out of the ‘Da Vinci Code’ debacle with its claims about Jesus’ marriage and descendants. But even with a cursory glance of this study it becomes clear that this is a serious work written by a genuine archaeologist and historian, and its claims are meant to be taken seriously. This is far from fiction, though it involves no small amount of historical conjecture. Since this book has so much substance, and since it may well be extremely influential in the way people look at Jesus and early Christianity for a long time to come, it deserves a thorough and detailed critique.
I must say at the outset that it is a pleasure to read such a well-written book, and one which takes so seriously the interface between the NT, history, archaeology and the story of earliest Christianity. Absent from this study are wild theories about Gnostic Gospels being our earliest and best sources about the life of Jesus, thank goodness. Equally refreshing is Tabor’s willingness to take serious the historical data not just in the Synoptics but also in the Gospel of John. Furthermore, Tabor is convinced the James ossuary is indeed the ossuary of the brother of Jesus and has a genuine inscription on it, and that Hershel Shanks and I will be ultimately vindicated on this score. He is equally clear that both the canonical Gospels and the James ossuary provide evidence for the fact that Mary and Joseph had other children besides Jesus. So far, so good.
The book begins with hard archaeological data and its analysis. There is the discussion of the newly found Shroud tomb (not to be connected with the Shroud of Turin) and the Talpiot tomb which has ossuaries that bear various names that are similar or the same to the names in Jesus’ family. The discussion is crisp and interesting, but all is not yet disclosed as to how this might be connected to the historical Jesus. I say this all the more because the Talpiot tomb is not a recent discovery and various archaeologists involved with it in the past have dismissed or denied the suggestion that it has any connection with Jesus’ family. There is also the further problem that while there were ten ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb, one went missing, as the British say. The suggestion that the missing one is the James ossuary really does not make sense of all the data we have about the latter ossuary. It was found in 1970s but the Talpiot tomb, first excavated in the 1980s. Nevertheless the idea can’t be entirely ruled out, for it is possible that Oded Golan, the owner of the James box may have not remembered correctly as to when he bought that ossuary.
The really fascinating part of this book begins about 50 pages in with Tabor’s analysis of the two genealogies of Jesus (one in Mt. 1 and one in Lk. 3). Tabor suggests that we take seriously these two genealogies and that they reflect two different branches of the royal Davidic line, but Joseph’s line is the cursed line referred to in Jer. 22.30, the line of Jehoachin, whereas Mary’s line is the line that runs back to David’s son Nathan, a more obscure line. In order to come to this conclusion however it requires a rather remarkable exegetical leap involving Lk. 3.23. Tabor takes this verse to mean that Jesus was assumed to be the son of Joseph, but actually he was of the line of Heli who is then presumed to be Mary’s father. The text actually says however “being a son, as was supposed of Joseph, of Heli”. The natural way to read this would be to connect Joseph with Heli, not Mary. But there is more. Tabor also suggests that Heli is short for Eliezer which in turn is actually Joachim, the traditional name of Mary’s father! To say the least this takes some exegetical and historical gymnastics to come to this conclusion.
But there is more. Tabor suggests that the reason for including four women, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba in the Matthean genealogy is because the author is preparing the reader to understand that Jesus likewise was conceived by means of an immoral union. This is not quite correct in regard to all these examples. In the case of Ruth for example, we are dealing with a Levirate marriage situation which was consider perfectly moral by Levitical standards and nothing whatsoever in the book of Ruth portrays Ruth as somehow a temptress just because she is a Moabite woman. Later rabbinic polemic is irrelevant in evaluating this.
The most one can say is that these women occur in the genealogy because they were involved in ‘irregular’ unions and yet God was still able to work things together for good. This prepares us for the irregular circumstance in the life of Mary. Both Matthew and Luke are perfectly clear that Mary was not involved in an illicit sexual relationship with anyone. The virtue of Mary and the virginal conception is clearly maintained, despite its controversial nature, by both the First and Third Evangelists. I would stress that no one would invent a story like this if they were starting an evangelistic sect. It is too improbable not to be true, not least because, as Tabor says Is. 7.14 does not specifically refer to a virginal conception and was not read that way in early Judaism. The incident in the life of Mary caused the re-reading of Is. 7.14, not the other way around. At least Tabor does point out that these stories in Matthew and Luke are not fully parallel with the stories of Zeus’ seduction and divine rape of Alkmene. What he does not mention is that the suggestion that Matthew in the genealogy is alluding to scandalous human origins for Jesus makes no sense in light of the fact that it is also Matthew who stresses the virginal conception. Whoever is the producer of the final form of this Gospel is certainly a better editor than to allude to scandal and then immediately rule it out with a divine explanation. There has to be a better explanation for the reference to those women in Joseph’s genealogy.
More plausible however is Tabor’s discussion of the significance of the name of the city of Nazareth, from netzer’ or ‘branch’. Tabor points out that this town is called ‘branch’ town because it was a place where descendants of the royal line of David settled. On this point I think he is quite right, and it would explain why Jesus’ family would settle there. He also makes the interesting remark that since Sepphoris was set ablaze at about the time Jesus was born as the Romans put down a Jewish revolt, and since there is a tradition that Mary ultimately came from Sepphoris, which is the larger town next door to Nazareth, there might well be impetus not to go back to Nazareth right after Jesus was born. Threats from Herod coupled with threats near Nazareth could have changed the intended itinerary of the holy family after the birth of Jesus. This strengthens the case for their having left the land of Herod altogether for a time, going down into Egypt where the largest Jewish population in the Diaspora lived. In other words, the connections Tabor has made thus far support the traditional reading of the story as well or better than Tabor’s reading of it.
I must confess that one of the things that bothers me about some modern historical reconstructions of the life of Jesus is that there is no openness at all to what we would call the miraculous, or it might be better to call it divine irregularity. I see no reason why divine intervention should be ruled out of the equation ‘ab initio’ (i.e. from the beginning). It is not a good historical principle to rule out causes of events in advance of examining the evidence, especially when none of us have an exhaustive knowledge of either historical or natural causation. The proverbial anti-supernatural bias is no more a good historical presupposition any more than the naïve assumption that everything requires a miraculous explanation, even the common cold (I am referring to those who like to talk about a demon or spirit causing them to catch a cold, and so on). All data needs to be critically analyzed of course, but one does not rule out the miraculous from the outset.
The assertion then of Tabor that “the assumption of the historian is that all human beings have a biological mother and father, and that Jesus is no exception” (p. 59) suggests that this is some sort of monolithic credo of all modern or critical historians. This is simply false. I might add as well that the assumption “miracles cannot happen and therefore do not happen” is equally a faith assumption. It is not based on empirical evidence or a careful study of history. There are thousands of credible testimonies to the contrary even in our own era. Though we like to pride ourselves on our open-mindedness in modernity, in fact ancient historians were far more open-minded when it came to the miraculous than modern ones.
Beginning on p. 64ff. Tabor trots out for us the shop-worn tale of Mary being impregnated by a Roman soldier named Pantera. As he rightly notes, this story first appears in a work written by a Greek philosopher named Celsus (circa A.D. 178), a work entitled ‘On the True Doctrine’ which is a polemical document Origen was to take on. Tabor then points to rabbinic traditions, predicated of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus which refers to Jesus as the ‘son of Panteri’.
The problem with this evidence is two fold: 1) the earliest Jewish text which includes this idea is Palestinian Tosephta t. Hullin 2.22-24. This is certainly not a first century text at all, and indeed it was written at a time when the polemics between early Christianity and early Judaism were in high gear. The same can be said about the text from Celsus, only in that case the debating partner is a pagan. As even John Dominic Crossan recently said on the CBS 48 Hours ‘Mystery of Christmas’ show we both appeared in December of 2005, these stories about Pantera are the later rebuttals to the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. They are not the origins of the Gospel stories which are clearly earlier than such texts.
Tabor is right that all four Gospels suggest Joseph was not Jesus’ father. What he fails to say is that one needs to consider the source and sort of the remarks we find in Jn. 8.41 or Mk. 6.3. None of these remarks come from Jesus or from his disciples. Rather they come from either skeptical outsiders, or even opponents. Gospel of Thomas saying 105 is much too elliptical to support Tabor’s reasoning at this juncture. In my view it may well be that the ‘son of Panteri’ polemic is a rebuttal to the Christian ‘son of a parthenos’ claim of the followers of Jesus. This is typical of the kind of punning and wordplay that went on in debates beginning with Jesus and the Pharisees and continuing with his followers and other Jews unpersuaded by the Gospel.
Tabor’s enthusiasm for the possible connection of a Roman soldier named Pantera/Panthera with Jesus propels him to go on a trip to Bad Kreuznach in Germany where there is indeed a gravestone with this name on it. To be specific we have the name Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, a soldier who died on the German front and was buried there. We are told on this gravestone that this man was from Sidon, and Tabor, with a great deal of creative imagination links this fact with the story in Mk. 7.24 where Jesus enters a house in Sidon and would have no one know it. Could this have been the home of Jesus’ actual father? Let us consider the evidence Tabor himself presents us with.
In the first place Tabor is right that the names Tiberius Julius suggest that this soldier was a slave who became a freedman and a soldier. Tiberius came to rule in A.D. 14 so he cannot have received this name before that time. Presumably he received the name and the Roman citizenship for his service in the army, which again places that service after A.D. 14. Now the gravestone also mentions that this soldier’s unit was the first cohort of archers and we also learn that this man served some 40 years in the army, dying at the age of 62. In all likelihood we are meant to think he died with his boots on. This in turn would mean he became a soldier at the age of 22.
Adolph Deissmann who first spoke of this inscription says that Pantera died in the middle of the first century. If this is correct, then several things follow: 1) Pantera was not a Roman soldier in 2-6 B.C. the period in which Jesus was born, as Tabor acknowledges; 2) If indeed this Cohort of archers went to Dalmatia in A.D. 6 and then on to the Rhine in A.D. 9, as Tabor avers (p. 69), then our man Pantera was not even yet with them it would appear, or if he was, he had only just become a solider in the first decade of the current era, not in the period 2-6 B.C. In other words, the calculations are off by a least a decade if not more. Thus, Tabor is wise in the end to back off and more weakly suggest that Jesus’ father was ‘possibly’ Pantera (p. 72).
I would say there are too many weak links in this whole line of thinking and we would do better to accept the judgment of Dom Crossan that the rebuttal story is responding to the virginal conception story which is earlier. What is troubling about this suggestion in any case is that it ignores that Mary grew up in a strict honor and shame culture and every indication we have is that she was exceedingly young when she became betrothed and pregnant—probably, as Tabor suggests, barely a teenager. We then have to ask the question how such a girl would even have met Pantera of Sidon, a man who lived more than 40 miles away in a different province and was not yet a soldier. Even more to the point since young daughters were closely watched and protected in devout Jewish homes, we must not think of her ever being alone with any strange man at the age of 12-13, much less a pagan. This is simply not true to first century Jewish life in a devout home. It is not like we can envision Mary going out at night to the local pub with her teenage friends! The historical implausibilities of this whole scenario suggested by Tabor and others are too great to be given real credence. I agree with Tabor’s lament that we should not abstract Mary from her first century Jewish milieu (p. 74), but unfortunately he is the one who opens the door to one such implausible scenario.
In his next chapter about ‘Children of a Different Father’ Tabor presents us with some good historical reasons why it is unlikely that Mary was a perpetual virgin. He rightly notes that this idea does not even arise before the time of Epiphanius who mentions it first in A.D. 374, as part of the debate over whether Jesus actually had siblings or not. Tabor is right to point to Eusebius who refers to Jesus’ ‘brothers after the flesh’ (Hist. Eccl. 2.23; 3.19), and it does appear that before the 4th century, the dominant opinion was that Jesus’ had half-brothers and sisters through Mary and Joseph. Tabor is right on target when he says that the rise of asceticism in the church led to the increasing likelihood that Mary and Joseph would both be dissociated from their sexuality or any form of sexual expression as such activity was deemed unholy. He is also right that it is anachronistic to read later church dogma, grounded in a rather unJewish sort of asceticism back into the NT text itself. But it is piling conjecture on conjecture to suggest that Mary bore children to Joseph’s brother, since Joseph died childless! This is something no NT or early Christian text suggests. It is based on the supposition that Joseph died childless and therefore the Levirate marriage rules came into play. We also have no evidence that Joseph was much older than Mary and had had children by a previous marriage. The Protoevangelium of James from the 2nd century A.D. is a classic example of the effect of a later Christian ascetical movement on the representation of Mary and Joseph. But alas, despite this good beginning in this chapter, once more the logic goes awry.
First Tabor wants to argue that the ‘other Mary’ who is mother of James and Joses (see Mk. 15.40; Mt. 27.56) is in fact Jesus’ mother. Even just taking the Markan account this is exceedingly unlikely. Mary the mother of Jesus has already been presented in Mk. 3 and 6 while Mary Magdalene is nowhere to be found until we get to Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem. It is simply not plausible to suggest that Mary Magdalene, someone not introduced until Mk. 15.40-41 would be presented as the primary Mary, and Jesus’ mother as ‘the other Mary’ at this juncture. This does not make sense of the narrative logic of the account. The first Mary introduced in Mark is Jesus’ mother. Mary Magdalene is almost an after thought in this Gospel. But secondly Tabor also misreads Jn. 19.25 which surely refers to four women, not three--- Jesus’ mother, her sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Though early Jews had a limited lexicon for naming children, it is not really plausible that Mary’s parents named two girls in a row Mary, or more correctly Maryam/Maria.
Tabor’s argument takes another left turn when he tries to amalgamate three Mary’s (or two and an anonymous sister) into one, and say they are all Jesus’ mother, who had married Joseph’s brother, named Clopas. Nothing in Mark or Matthew or John even remotely suggests this. Indeed the texts as we have them suggest we are dealing with multiple women, at least two of whom are named Mary and have children named for patriarchs--- Jacob and Joseph. This is no surprise since these are exceedingly common male names in this era, indeed the most common ones, along with Simon. It is not at all absurd that Mary, Jesus’ mother, and her sister-in-law might use the same patriarchal names for their children.
But in fact we do not even know that Mary of Clopas is either our Mary’s sister or her sister in law. The conjecture that Mary of Clopas is the Virgin Mary’s sister is based on turning four women into three in Jn. 19.25. The suggestion that she is a sister in law of our Mary is even less evident. Once more, though, Tabor backs off (p. 81) and allows that the brothers and sisters of Jesus may be Mary and Joseph’s children, while still conjuring with the notion that Joseph’s brother Clopas sired them. Then finally we have a clear statement of Tabor’s thesis, the engine that will drive the train of the rest of this book: “Jesus by age thirty functions as head of the household and forges a vital role for his brothers, who succeed him in establishing a Messianic Dynasty destined to change the world.” (p. 81). But is this really indicated by our earliest and best historical evidence? We must travel further with Tabor to see the twists and turns he takes along the way to make his case.
In the beginning of the second major part of his book, Tabor reminds us that we should not give much if any credence to later apocryphal stories about Jesus in the 2nd century document the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, much less even later legends about Jesus traveling to India or Great Britain! I could wish he would have taken his own advice and ignored much later traditions from the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and even later Jewish traditions about Jesus. Tabor then states clearly “Historians give such legendary material little credibility. We have to face the fact that thirty years of Jesus’ life are simply missing and attempts to fill them in with legends and fables do nothing to advance our quest for the historical Jesus.” (p. 87). Undaunted however, since both nature and historians abhor a vacuum, Tabor proposes to fill in the gaps with the help of archaeological and historical tidbits, using some Gospel tales while dismissing various other parts of the Gospel evidence we do have.
In the first place he stresses that Mary and Joseph were exceedingly poor, since they could only offer two doves as a sacrifice for having Jesus (cf. Lk. 2.24: Lev. 12.8). This is overlooking the important point that since Joseph is an artisan used to bartering, he could hardly cart his wares all the way to Jerusalem to make an exchange for a lamb for sacrifice. Thus he must rely of what liquid assets he has to hand. We need to bear in mind that a money economy was only just on the rise, and Jews for their part, didn’t much like handling or dealing with money, particularly Roman coins. We must envision then that Joseph has very little monetary assets on the occasion of this sacrifice. This need not imply their ‘dire poverty’ (p. 87). Most of us know what it means to run short from time to time, and artisans, even those who did well, had this experience with some regularity though this hardly meant they could not afford a home and to support a family.
In the second place Tabor dismisses the slaughter of the innocents’ story in Mt. 2 out of hand, on the grounds that it is not mentioned by Josephus. This is unfortunate, since the archaeological and historical records support the likelihood of this event. Firstly, it is completely in character for Herod the Great to do such a thing as he was paranoid about the succession even executing some of his own offspring and wives! Secondly, Bethlehem was a very tiny town in Jesus’ day. If all children under two were killed we still would not be talking about even 10 children in all likelihood. Such a small event in a small town, well off Josephus’ radar screen when he wrote his history of the ‘Jewish Wars’ and even later his ‘Antiquities’ could easily have been missed by him. It is not good history to exaggerate the size of the slaughter, and it is an argument from silence to say it didn’t happen because Josephus doesn’t mention it. Matthew mentions it, and not just for theological reasons either.
Tabor also seems to be ignorant of the fact that the Lukan birth story, which he sees as more true to life, refers to there being no place in the katalumati (Lk. 2.7), and that elsewhere Luke uses this specific word to refer to the guest room (Lk. 22.11), not the inn. Joseph and Mary had arrived at the ancestral home late. The guest room was full. Instead they are placed, not in a barn, but as the archaeology of both Judea and Galilee has shown, in the back of the house where one would keep one’s beast of burden. It is possible that the back of the house was a cave, but this need not be the case. He is right however that Mary and Joseph would have attempted to stay in Bethlehem for at least 40 days so they could fulfill the Jewish ritual about the sacrifice for the new born. The threat of Herod may have cut this time a bit short.
Tabor rightly reminds us (p. 89) that the Greek word teknon means builder or artisan. It can refer to a worker in wood, or in stone. I agree that this likely means Jesus and his family used both sorts of materials to build houses, since stones were the normal main material used to construct a house in Galilee (see Lk. 6.48). Unfortunately, then Tabor makes the leap of logic that a teknon is or is akin to a day laborer, and that therefore we are also justified in seeing Joseph and Jesus as ‘itinerant peasants’ (p. 90). This frankly is a myth. A peasant is bound to the land as a day laborer. He is not a skilled practicioner of a needed trade. Furthermore, as Tabor knows, Sepphoris was a boom town during the time of Jesus’ formative and young adult years, where there was work every single day for carpenters and stone masons. We need to stop perpetuating the myth of the bucolic, impoverished, Jesus the illiterate peasant. This is not what our Gospel evidence and the larger historical evidence suggests! If we have to see them as blue collar workers, so be it, but they were able to have homes, families, and provide for those families in a good fashion, especially since Nazareth was always near to paying work for artisans.
In his reconstruction of Jesus’ ‘lost years’ Tabor takes a very different and more interesting tact than some. He suggests that Jesus was busy running his family’s business as he conjectures that Joseph had died prior to the time of Jesus’ ministry. This indeed is possible since Joseph is not mentioned as being alive during the ministry of Jesus, and whenever we hear of the family (Jn. 2, Jn. 7, Mk. 3, Mk. 6 and parallels) it is only Mary and the children that are referred to. Does this warrant the assumption that Jesus ran the family business for many years? No it does not. Joseph may have died only shortly before Jesus began his ministry somewhere around A.D. 27-28. Jesus may of course have worked in the family business but that is a different matter. And notice that when his ministry begins, Jesus would have left the family in charge of someone who stayed home most of the time, presumably James the next eldest brother. Still Tabor is perhaps right that Jesus may well have worked in Sepphoris for some time
Tabor begins to cultivate an image of Jesus and his family as not only being Davidic, but even in some sense revolutionary about a third of the way through the book. Thus at p. 104 we first hear of the conjecture that Mary’s children are named after the local Galilean Zealots Judas the Galilean and his two sons James and Simon. The suggestion is made that Jesus’ family was sympathetic to violent opposition to Roman rule (Judas the Galilean had broken into the armory in Sepphoris to get weapons, and he certainly used them in various places in Galilee). It is however far more likely that Mary and Joseph named their children for the Patriarchs (Jacob and Joseph) and the Maccabean heroes (Simon and Judas). They could hardly have named them for Judas the Galilean and his sons if their children were born before Judas’ revolt in A.D. 6. Furthermore, the suggestion that Jesus’ family supported the revolt is entirely an argument from silence, unless you accept Tabor’s equally improbable conjecture that four of Jesus’ brothers were amongst the Twelve disciples, including Simon the Zealot! (see p. 120 and see the discussion below). What is odd is that Tabor introduces this idea without arguing for it at the juncture at which he first makes mention of it, but then supports it later. This is bound to confuse the average reader.
Here we can say that this notion of Jesus’ brother being among the Twelve makes little sense in light of what is said about Jesus’ brothers always being with Mary during and after the ministry (Mk. 3.21-35; Mk. 6.3; probably suggests the brothers are present in Nazareth cf. Jn. 2.12 where they are grouped with Mary and distinguished from Jesus’ disciples and see Acts 1.14). Of course Jn. 7.5 is quite explicit. Not only are the brothers separate from Jesus and the disciples and going to the festival on their own, but they are also said quite explicitly not to believe in Jesus at this juncture. They appear here to be more like the patriarch Joseph’s brothers, than like Jesus’ disciples.
But Tabor is not content with just these sorts of unsubstantiated conjectures, some of which flatly contradict what various Gospel texts do say or suggest. At p. 108 he states boldly that Jesus had a plan “that he believed would lead to the complete overthrow of all that Rome and its Jewish sympathizers and supporters represented, including the corrupt religious establishment that ran the Temple of Jerusalem.” He adds that “He saw himself as doing nothing other than fulfilling the words of Moses and the Prophets, and the messianic hope that guided his life, and led him to his death, was the central core of his being”(p. 109). This is fair enough provided we bear in mind that Jesus by contrast did not share the Maccabean or Zealot commitment to violent opposition to one’s oppressors. At this same juncture Tabor stresses that Jesus was a Jew not a Christian, but this is only a half truth at best. Tabor admits Jesus had a messianic self-understanding, he just doesn’t think it much comports with later Christological ideas about Jesus. I disagree and have argued for the ‘Christology of Jesus’ in a full length monograph of the same name. Jesus had a messianic and thoroughly Jewish self-understanding but the question is--- What sort?
Tabor envisions a Jesus who draws up his ideas about God’s Kingdom in response to and in reaction against the kingdom building he saw in Sepphoris and in Jerusalem by the Herodians attempting to be like Hellenistic, though somewhat Jewish, monarchs. Jesus is a Torah true Jew committed to upholding the Mosaic Law, upset with the collaboration of Jews with Rome, but remarkably open to some individual outsiders (Samaritans, Gentile centurions). Jesus however did not accept the oral traditions of the Pharisees and some other groups (p. 116).
Tabor paints a picture of Jesus as one in some ways similar to the more lenient Hillelite wing of Pharisaism, and in some ways like the Essenes (i.e. Dead Sea sect). The Esasenes called themselves the people of the New Covenant, were awaiting the coming of two messiahs, one priestly, one royal, practiced a form of baptism for initiates, and advocated communal living involving sacred meals among others things (pp. 118-20). Tabor, like most of us, is puzzled as to why the Pharisees and Sadducees get significant play in the NT but the Essenes are never once mentioned by Jesus or anyone else. Here Tabor is at his more judicious best when he reminds that most Jews were not part of any of the major sects of Judaism, and when he suggests that there were indeed Pharisees in various places in Galilee that Jesus could have encountered.
Finally on p. 121 we get a help summary of where this argument with all its speculative features is going. As it turns out, Tabor will take the Schweitzerian point of view about Jesus (see the dedication on p. vii) with all its liabilities but also possibilities. Here is his summary: “Jesus is best identified with what might be described as the Messianic Movement of 1rst century Palestine. It was intensely apocalyptic, and though sharing certain ideas with the Essenes, it had a much broader appeal to rank-and-file Jews of all persuasions, united in their hope for God’s deliverance…who expected a radical change based on the messianic predictions of the Hebrew Prophets…God would intervene to fulfill those messianic predictions.” (p. 121).
This places Tabor somewhere between Bart Ehrman and Dale Allison in his view of Jesus, and there are aspects of this view which are absolutely correct. Tabor is right that there is no non-messianic, non-eschatological, non-Jewish Jesus to be found at the bottom of the well of history. But what sort of messiah, what sort of eschatology did Jesus advocate? What sort of Jew was he? These are the real questions.
To address these sort of questions, Tabor begins with a portrait of John the Baptizer. He saw himself as carrying out the mission announced in Is. 40.3 and Mal. 3.1. While he may have spent some time at Qumran, and he used the same texts to envision his mission, his approach to the coming conflagration was not ‘withdraw, purify and save yourselves’ but rather to call the nation to repentance and baptism in preparation for what was to follow. John takes a more extroverted, the Essenes a more introverted approach to the interpretation of those prophetic texts. Tabor believes John began his mission in the spring or summer of A.D. 26 (p. 125). He also believes John saw himself in the mold of Elijah, calling even the authorities and rulers to account as Elijah had done. He believes that John deliberate picked the location of Aenon near Salim just south of the sea of Galilee as this was very near Tishbe, the home of Elijah. As Tabor says, it was also near the major thoroughfare used by Galilean Jews to go up to the festivals in Jerusalem, especially those who wanted avoid going through Samaria.
Tabor then suggests that soon thereafter Jesus himself came to be baptized by John and heard the call of a different Isaianic text (Is. 42.1). “By such a response he was publicly joining and endorsing the revival movement John had sparked…from the time of Jesus’ baptism he was ready to take his destined place alongside John as a full partner in the baptizing movement. Together they were prepared to face whatever lay ahead in the prophetic roles to which each believed he was called.” (p. 129). But did Jesus actually join John’s movement, or simply endorse it? Do we have any hard historical evidence that Jesus baptized people along side of John? And while we are at it, do we have any hard evidence that John saw himself, or that Jesus viewed John, as the priestly messiah spoken of at Qumran? The answer to all these questions is probably no. John may well have, and Jesus more certainly did, see John as an Elijah like prophet. This did not make him a priestly messiah figure. Tabor makes much of the findings at the Suba cave, near Jerusalem, which may include a stick figure drawing of John. This location is seen as close to John’s birth home in Ein Kerem in the Judean hills. As Tabor admits, this is a Christian site, where pilgrims came to honor the birth of John the great prophet. The visit to this cave seems to have involved pouring of water, anointing of feet, and perhaps even immersion in a pool that is at the back of the cave. One could see this as a pilgrim following the lead of Jesus who was baptized by John.
As Tabor admits however, the drawing on the cave wall, which may or may not be John the Baptizer (see the BAR review of this find in the May/June 2005 issue pp. 36-41, and 58) probably dates to the 5th century A.D. (p. 132). And certainly we have no hard evidence John the Baptist himself ever was in it or used this site (was it a practice site in preparation for his going to the Jordan and baptizing people?). Tabor admits there is no hard evidence but his enthusiasm for what he has helped to uncover leads him to this conclusion “I am convinced that the Suba cave is our earliest archaeological evidence related to John the Baptizer—and very possibly to Jesus himself” (p. 133). But what is the basis of this enthusiastic conclusion? Tabor frankly makes the same mistake many of us do. His enthusiasm for something he has discovered or learned propels him to overreach, to draw conclusions that outstrip the historical evidence. As the British would say, ‘he over eggs the pudding’. Unfortunately Tabor does it with such regularity that he piles one overly-enthusiastic conclusion or idea on another, building uncertainty upon uncertainty until we have an edifice with very shaky foundations at crucial points.
And here we must register a major complaint about this study. This is not a complaint about the detailed attention to archaeological or Jewish historical detail. Tabor’s study, like the work of Bart Ehrman, is long on the author’s forte (in this case archaeology, in Ehrman’s case text criticism) but very, very short on real exegesis of relevant NT texts. Neither of these scholars has produced any commentaries on any books of the NT, and consequently they do not show any signs of having had to wrestle at length with Gospel texts in their larger literary contexts. Rather bits and pieces of verses are abstracted from their contexts in the Gospels and elsewhere to create a new creative whole, used to bolster theories arrived at on grounds other than detailed exegesis of the primary source texts.
I am want to say, ‘a text without a context is just a pretext for what you want it to mean’. It is not enough to know either the archaeological context or the general historical context or even the textual history of particular verses. One must deal in depth with the primary source of information we do have about Jesus and his first followers, namely the NT texts themselves. In Tabor’s case his love for archaeology leads him to place archaeology and historical context as a primary source and NT texts as a secondary source for his proposals. This is exactly the opposite of what should be attempted. The historical context and archaeology are important to an enterprise like studying the historical Jesus to the extent that they clarify, illuminate, or clearly refute what the NT says.
A good example of what I mean when I say this study is long on archaeological and historical context but weak on exegesis is the way Tabor treats a saying like Lk. 7.28 (see p. 136). Now this saying is a particular type of wisdom saying, a contrast saying, and it is a singular mistake to not deal with both halves of the contrast. The saying reads “I tell you among those born of women, none is greater than John, but the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” Tabor unfortunately wants to only deal with the first half of this saying, which leads him to the conclusion that Jesus saw John as greater than himself (“it is clear in the Q source that Jesus is declaring John to be greater than he”). He considers the following phrase as a later Christian addition to the text. But this will not do. Not only is there not a shred of textual evidence that this second clause is added later, it destroys the very form of a typical puzzling wisdom saying for which Jesus was so famous. There can be no doubt that Jesus had a very high estimation of John and his ministry. Tabor is right that this fact must not be obscured or neglected. It is equally clear that he did not see him as a messiah or as greater than himself. There is simply too much evidence in our earliest Gospel sources to the contrary (see my lengthy discussion of their relationship in The Christology of Jesus 1990, pp. 34-56).
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
The Sad Truth about Judas
According to John 12 it actually started before the Last Supper. Judas did not like the way things were going at the beginning of Passover week A.D. 30, and objected to the extravagance of Mary's anointing Jesus feet with the ancient equivalent of a pint of Chanel No. 5. Judas protested the wasting of a whole year's salary which could have been used to help the poor. Jesus' response was curt--- "leave her alone, allow her to observe it" presumably referring to her observing a burial ritual in advance of Jesus' death, though Mary would not have realized the act had this significance. We are told that Judas was the one who carried the money bag for the Twelve, and there is the further editorial comment by the Evangelist that he was not really concerned for the poor, and that he had a habit of dipping into the till.
He was not the last disciple to let greed get the best of him. But even on this occasion it began to become clear that despite riding into town on a donkey to great Hosannas and despite the prophetic action in the Temple, Jesus had come to town to die, not to kill or to kick the Romans out of town. If Judas was like Simon the Zealot, this could only have been profoundly disallusioning.
There is some reason to think that Judas may have been a Zealot. His name 'Iscariot' could actually mean either man of Kerioth, or Sicarri--- which means dagger men. The Zealots had their hit men, called Sicarri and Judas may well have been one of them before he joined the Twelve. This is by no means certain but it is historically plausible. If this was Judas' background, then his dreams of what Jesus would accomplish at Passover A.D. 30 would have been shattered by the last supper in which Jesus made clear he was about to give his life for his disciples, and others. We must all beware when we love our vision and dream of the Kingdom more than we love Jesus-- for Jesus will require it of us. I suspect Judas was such a person.
And Jesus knew what Judas had in mind, even told him to go and do it quickly. This does not mean that Jesus put Judas up to it, unlike what the Gospel of Judas suggests. It does mean Jesus foresaw where this story was leading and he tried to prepare his disciples for the shocking end that was coming. So when Judas went out into the night on April 6th A.D. 30, it is not a surprise that they most symbolic of Gospels says at this point "and it was night". Indeed, it was midnight in the garden of evil, and Judas was willingly going to play a role in the handing over and betrayal of Jesus. There could hardly be a worse perfidy, and it is in no ways surprising that the portrait of Judas got darker and darker after NT times in post-apostolic literature. This is one of the things that makes the Gospel of Judas interesting-- it is bucking the tide on this point.
But what should we really think of Judas's act? For one thing we notice that altruism is ruled out. Judas did not merely betray Jesus on principle, he betrayed him for thirty Tyrian shekels, which comports with what John 12 tells us about his love of money. This was a doubly dubious act, not a noble one meant to aid Jesus on his way to becoming martyr, superstar, or to help him get into heaven a little quicker, sloughing off the flesh. Nothing in our earliest sources suggests anything noble about Judas' deed.
Leave Judas aside for one moment-- ask your self this question-- Would Jesus have forgiven Judas if he had repented and sought it? The Jesus who from the cross said to his tormentors and executions "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" could certainly have said this to Judas. But as my friend James Howell has said guilt and remorse over consequences is not the same as repentance.
We have evidence that there was remorse in the case of Judas-- he tries to give the money back, and according to one tradition he hangs himself, presumably ashamed of what he did. His actions suggest shame and guilt, but repentance is another thing. In an honor and shame culture there are plenty of occasions where one feels shame and guilt about how things turned out, but in fact is not prepared to repent of what one has done. We do not know if Judas did so. But equally we have no basis in the NT to say what later church fathers said--- namely that we know for sure he was damned for all time.
Jesus, it is true says "it would have been better if such a person had never been born" but this is a woe saying presumably meant to warn his disciples against such an action, not suggest that it was inevitable or predestined that Judas would do this. It must be remembered that John 13 says Satan entered Judas (compare Luke's account), not God. He became an emissary of the powers of darkness, not of the Heavenly Father, and so his deed must be seen as wicked, not as noble or even God-ordained.
But where does this leave us, with Judas hanging from a tree and Jesus hanging on a tree? What should we think of all this today? The universal offer of forgiveness by Jesus is a paramount part of his message. But forgiveness offered is not the same as forgiveness received. We must be content to leave the final judgment of Judas in God's hands, and not try to either blacken or exonerate his reputation on the basis of later Christian and not so Christian traditions.
When we think of Judas there should be one thought upper most in our mind when we look at how he ruined his life. We should reflect and say in our heart of hearts "there but for the grace of God go I." We must all repent and believe the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Only so will Good Friday and Easter be good news for us.
He was not the last disciple to let greed get the best of him. But even on this occasion it began to become clear that despite riding into town on a donkey to great Hosannas and despite the prophetic action in the Temple, Jesus had come to town to die, not to kill or to kick the Romans out of town. If Judas was like Simon the Zealot, this could only have been profoundly disallusioning.
There is some reason to think that Judas may have been a Zealot. His name 'Iscariot' could actually mean either man of Kerioth, or Sicarri--- which means dagger men. The Zealots had their hit men, called Sicarri and Judas may well have been one of them before he joined the Twelve. This is by no means certain but it is historically plausible. If this was Judas' background, then his dreams of what Jesus would accomplish at Passover A.D. 30 would have been shattered by the last supper in which Jesus made clear he was about to give his life for his disciples, and others. We must all beware when we love our vision and dream of the Kingdom more than we love Jesus-- for Jesus will require it of us. I suspect Judas was such a person.
And Jesus knew what Judas had in mind, even told him to go and do it quickly. This does not mean that Jesus put Judas up to it, unlike what the Gospel of Judas suggests. It does mean Jesus foresaw where this story was leading and he tried to prepare his disciples for the shocking end that was coming. So when Judas went out into the night on April 6th A.D. 30, it is not a surprise that they most symbolic of Gospels says at this point "and it was night". Indeed, it was midnight in the garden of evil, and Judas was willingly going to play a role in the handing over and betrayal of Jesus. There could hardly be a worse perfidy, and it is in no ways surprising that the portrait of Judas got darker and darker after NT times in post-apostolic literature. This is one of the things that makes the Gospel of Judas interesting-- it is bucking the tide on this point.
But what should we really think of Judas's act? For one thing we notice that altruism is ruled out. Judas did not merely betray Jesus on principle, he betrayed him for thirty Tyrian shekels, which comports with what John 12 tells us about his love of money. This was a doubly dubious act, not a noble one meant to aid Jesus on his way to becoming martyr, superstar, or to help him get into heaven a little quicker, sloughing off the flesh. Nothing in our earliest sources suggests anything noble about Judas' deed.
Leave Judas aside for one moment-- ask your self this question-- Would Jesus have forgiven Judas if he had repented and sought it? The Jesus who from the cross said to his tormentors and executions "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" could certainly have said this to Judas. But as my friend James Howell has said guilt and remorse over consequences is not the same as repentance.
We have evidence that there was remorse in the case of Judas-- he tries to give the money back, and according to one tradition he hangs himself, presumably ashamed of what he did. His actions suggest shame and guilt, but repentance is another thing. In an honor and shame culture there are plenty of occasions where one feels shame and guilt about how things turned out, but in fact is not prepared to repent of what one has done. We do not know if Judas did so. But equally we have no basis in the NT to say what later church fathers said--- namely that we know for sure he was damned for all time.
Jesus, it is true says "it would have been better if such a person had never been born" but this is a woe saying presumably meant to warn his disciples against such an action, not suggest that it was inevitable or predestined that Judas would do this. It must be remembered that John 13 says Satan entered Judas (compare Luke's account), not God. He became an emissary of the powers of darkness, not of the Heavenly Father, and so his deed must be seen as wicked, not as noble or even God-ordained.
But where does this leave us, with Judas hanging from a tree and Jesus hanging on a tree? What should we think of all this today? The universal offer of forgiveness by Jesus is a paramount part of his message. But forgiveness offered is not the same as forgiveness received. We must be content to leave the final judgment of Judas in God's hands, and not try to either blacken or exonerate his reputation on the basis of later Christian and not so Christian traditions.
When we think of Judas there should be one thought upper most in our mind when we look at how he ruined his life. We should reflect and say in our heart of hearts "there but for the grace of God go I." We must all repent and believe the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Only so will Good Friday and Easter be good news for us.
Monday, April 10, 2006
The Gospel of Judas-- the NPR Discussion
For any of you listening to "On Point" this morning on NPR, which involved host Tom Asher, myself, Karen King of Harvard, and Marvin Meyer of Chapman U. one of the translators of the Gospel of Judas, several new things came to light.
First of all Professor Meyer admitted that we have absolutely no Greek fragments of this Gospel at all. His argument is that the use of Greek loan words in the Coptic text of the Gospel of Judas demonstrates that there "must have been a Greek original" behind this Coptic text. This is in no way a convincing argument on two counts: 1) there are various Latin loan words in the NT, and this certainly in no way would ever lead us to think there were putative Latin originals of these Gospels; 2) Coptic is a language already heavily dependent on Greek, and no only in regard to its alphabet. It is a language that tries to draw on the benefits of the harvest of Hellenism, including on its language.
Greek had long been the lingua franca of the Hellenistic and then Roman Empires centuries before the Gospel of Judas was ever written. Greek heavily influenced languages like Coptic, and one of the residues of such influence is loan words. No, we would have to have clear evidence of 'Greek interference' in this Coptic text--- by which I mean clear evidence in the grammar, syntax etc. that the author is translating from a Greek original before we could draw such a conclusion. As things stand, Meyer is overreading the evidence we have and wishing for there to have been a Greek version of this text. This may be nothing more than wishful thinking.
The second important thing which this conversation on NPR brought to light, was stressed by Professor King, and rightly so. This document is not likely to help the cause of those who despise anti-Semitism, and all three of the scholars on this program would agree in finding such an attitude reprehensible, because this document has various passages which reflect anti-Semitic views of various sorts.
King is perfectly right to say that while Judas may get a bit of a reprieve in this document, other Jews certainly do not. It makes one wonder why anyone like Professor Meyer would hope that this document would promote more tolerance, or would think that it might achieve such an aim, given some of the polemical content of the document itself. Taken on face value the Gospel of Judas does not promote the feminist agendas of Professor King or the tolerance agendas of Professor Meyer.
Nor, I would reiterate once more, does this document in any way change our views of the historical Jesus or Judas, because this document has no claims at all to be in touch with any first century persons. Unlike the NT which was all written by Jews, with the possible exception of Luke-Acts and all written in the first century A.D., this Gnostic document like the Gospel of Mary and Philip and others are written by persons who surely are not Jews, and indeed don't much like Judaism and its creation theology, and are writing at various steps of remove from the NT period, and with a Gnostic philosophy that is in fact antithetical to much of what the NT says about a whole host of subjects such as history, eschatology, creation,the value of the OT to mention but four subjects.
When all the hype dies down, what we will be left with is further evidence of an interesting split off movement from early Christianity which began in the second century A.D. and was tolerated for two centuries by the church until the church fathers and mothers had heard quite enough of these fairy tales. In short, it helps us understand post apostolic and Nicene church history better, it tells us nothing about the origins of Christianity or the historical Jesus.
First of all Professor Meyer admitted that we have absolutely no Greek fragments of this Gospel at all. His argument is that the use of Greek loan words in the Coptic text of the Gospel of Judas demonstrates that there "must have been a Greek original" behind this Coptic text. This is in no way a convincing argument on two counts: 1) there are various Latin loan words in the NT, and this certainly in no way would ever lead us to think there were putative Latin originals of these Gospels; 2) Coptic is a language already heavily dependent on Greek, and no only in regard to its alphabet. It is a language that tries to draw on the benefits of the harvest of Hellenism, including on its language.
Greek had long been the lingua franca of the Hellenistic and then Roman Empires centuries before the Gospel of Judas was ever written. Greek heavily influenced languages like Coptic, and one of the residues of such influence is loan words. No, we would have to have clear evidence of 'Greek interference' in this Coptic text--- by which I mean clear evidence in the grammar, syntax etc. that the author is translating from a Greek original before we could draw such a conclusion. As things stand, Meyer is overreading the evidence we have and wishing for there to have been a Greek version of this text. This may be nothing more than wishful thinking.
The second important thing which this conversation on NPR brought to light, was stressed by Professor King, and rightly so. This document is not likely to help the cause of those who despise anti-Semitism, and all three of the scholars on this program would agree in finding such an attitude reprehensible, because this document has various passages which reflect anti-Semitic views of various sorts.
King is perfectly right to say that while Judas may get a bit of a reprieve in this document, other Jews certainly do not. It makes one wonder why anyone like Professor Meyer would hope that this document would promote more tolerance, or would think that it might achieve such an aim, given some of the polemical content of the document itself. Taken on face value the Gospel of Judas does not promote the feminist agendas of Professor King or the tolerance agendas of Professor Meyer.
Nor, I would reiterate once more, does this document in any way change our views of the historical Jesus or Judas, because this document has no claims at all to be in touch with any first century persons. Unlike the NT which was all written by Jews, with the possible exception of Luke-Acts and all written in the first century A.D., this Gnostic document like the Gospel of Mary and Philip and others are written by persons who surely are not Jews, and indeed don't much like Judaism and its creation theology, and are writing at various steps of remove from the NT period, and with a Gnostic philosophy that is in fact antithetical to much of what the NT says about a whole host of subjects such as history, eschatology, creation,the value of the OT to mention but four subjects.
When all the hype dies down, what we will be left with is further evidence of an interesting split off movement from early Christianity which began in the second century A.D. and was tolerated for two centuries by the church until the church fathers and mothers had heard quite enough of these fairy tales. In short, it helps us understand post apostolic and Nicene church history better, it tells us nothing about the origins of Christianity or the historical Jesus.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
The Gospel of Judas--- Part Two
I was on the phone yesterday with my close friend Dr. A.J. Levine who teaches at Vanderbilt Div. School. She was called in late in the game to give a bit more balance to the group of scholars unveiling the Gospel of Judas. I asked her point blank: " Well A.J. is this document of any importance at all in helping us understand the historical Jesus or the historical Judas and their relationship?" She said unequivocally--- "none whatsoever". In other words, we need to all have our baloney detection meters set to 'heightened alert' as we watch the special on the Gospel of Judas tonight. While this document will tell us more about the split off movement called Gnosticism, and so is of considerable interest as we learn more about church history in the period from the late 2nd century through the fourth century, it tells us nothing about the origins of Christianity or the beginnings of the Jesus movement.
But there is more. I asked A.J. about whether there was in her view any hard evidence that this document existed in Greek, or does it first appear in Coptic. We discussed the evidence from Irenaeus. As she reminded me, the way Irenaeus describes the content of the Gospel of Judas that he knows, it has very different content from this Coptic Gospel of Judas which we are now being regaled with. In other words, it is not at all clear that this Coptic Judas document is the same document referred to by Irenaeus. This needs to be demonstrated, not assumed to be the case. I would just add that it is perfectly possible that the document Irenaeus knows became a source for this later Coptic document, which again does not date, by carbon dating to before the beginning of the 4th century A.D. This places the Coptic Gospel of Judas at even a further remove from the first century A.D. and its documents. It is entirely possible that the Gospel of Judas we now have is not the original document created by the Cainite Gnostics that Irenaeus knows and speaks of.
A.J. was also in agreement with me that this document has no material which could or should shake the faith of Christians in what is said in the NT about Jesus and Judas for the very good reason that it comes from a much later source, and one that not even its advocates are really suggesting is written by the historical Judas. In fact it is just another example of the phenomenon known as pseudonymity--- documents with falsely attributed authors--- other such examples are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip and so on.
Pseudonymity was a practice of those who did not have enough authority themselves to create sacred texts and so borrowed the name of an earlier illustrious or in this case notorious figure to create the air of an authentic eyewitness document. It needs to be said that this practice was very clearly denounced not only by church fathers like Tertullian and Ireneaus and Hippolytus who tell us about monks and priests being defrocked for dreaming up such documents, but in the wider Greco-Roman world there were plenty of persons who deplored this practice and saw it as a form of deception and fraud. For example, Cicero and Quintilian both complain about people creating documents in their name which they had nothing to do with. There was indeed a moral issue with such documents, then as now. It was not an 'acceptable literary practice of that era' as some might lead you to believe. I have much more to say on this subject, and you will find it in the Introduction to my Letters and Homilies of the NT Vol. 1 on the Pastorals and Johannine Epistles. It is my view that we do not have any such documents in the NT--- all of them are written by persons connected directly or indirectly with eyewitnesses and apostolic figures of the first century. But more on this later.
For those interested, it would serve you well to listen to all the sound clips on the National Geographic Gospel of Judas website about the Gospel of Judas. Evans is a Canadian scholar widely known for his excellent work and temperate approach to sensational claims. He reflects the mainstream of NT scholarship far more than Pagels, Meyer, or Ehrman.
In my opinion, of the three great supposed 'revelations' of this season, the one to pay the most attention to is James Tabor's work "The Jesus Dynasty" which argues for a messianic Jesus who set up a family dynasty. I will be posting a full critique of it later this week. In the meantime, watch the National Geographic Special with a critical eye, and the baloney detection meter fully operational.
But there is more. I asked A.J. about whether there was in her view any hard evidence that this document existed in Greek, or does it first appear in Coptic. We discussed the evidence from Irenaeus. As she reminded me, the way Irenaeus describes the content of the Gospel of Judas that he knows, it has very different content from this Coptic Gospel of Judas which we are now being regaled with. In other words, it is not at all clear that this Coptic Judas document is the same document referred to by Irenaeus. This needs to be demonstrated, not assumed to be the case. I would just add that it is perfectly possible that the document Irenaeus knows became a source for this later Coptic document, which again does not date, by carbon dating to before the beginning of the 4th century A.D. This places the Coptic Gospel of Judas at even a further remove from the first century A.D. and its documents. It is entirely possible that the Gospel of Judas we now have is not the original document created by the Cainite Gnostics that Irenaeus knows and speaks of.
A.J. was also in agreement with me that this document has no material which could or should shake the faith of Christians in what is said in the NT about Jesus and Judas for the very good reason that it comes from a much later source, and one that not even its advocates are really suggesting is written by the historical Judas. In fact it is just another example of the phenomenon known as pseudonymity--- documents with falsely attributed authors--- other such examples are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip and so on.
Pseudonymity was a practice of those who did not have enough authority themselves to create sacred texts and so borrowed the name of an earlier illustrious or in this case notorious figure to create the air of an authentic eyewitness document. It needs to be said that this practice was very clearly denounced not only by church fathers like Tertullian and Ireneaus and Hippolytus who tell us about monks and priests being defrocked for dreaming up such documents, but in the wider Greco-Roman world there were plenty of persons who deplored this practice and saw it as a form of deception and fraud. For example, Cicero and Quintilian both complain about people creating documents in their name which they had nothing to do with. There was indeed a moral issue with such documents, then as now. It was not an 'acceptable literary practice of that era' as some might lead you to believe. I have much more to say on this subject, and you will find it in the Introduction to my Letters and Homilies of the NT Vol. 1 on the Pastorals and Johannine Epistles. It is my view that we do not have any such documents in the NT--- all of them are written by persons connected directly or indirectly with eyewitnesses and apostolic figures of the first century. But more on this later.
For those interested, it would serve you well to listen to all the sound clips on the National Geographic Gospel of Judas website about the Gospel of Judas. Evans is a Canadian scholar widely known for his excellent work and temperate approach to sensational claims. He reflects the mainstream of NT scholarship far more than Pagels, Meyer, or Ehrman.
In my opinion, of the three great supposed 'revelations' of this season, the one to pay the most attention to is James Tabor's work "The Jesus Dynasty" which argues for a messianic Jesus who set up a family dynasty. I will be posting a full critique of it later this week. In the meantime, watch the National Geographic Special with a critical eye, and the baloney detection meter fully operational.
Friday, April 07, 2006
"V for Vendetta"-- R for Revenge
Picture the United Kingdom becoming a totalitarian state sometime in the not too distant future. Picture America becoming a second rate power embroiled in its own civil war, after having been drained by years of fruitless wars abroad. Picture this British totalitarian state being driven by a bad amalgam of politics and religion, in particular some facist form of Christianity combined with ultra violent politics—including a policy that involves extermination of Moslems and homosexuals, absolute thought control of the culture through complete political control of all television media, and medical experimentation on ‘undesirables’. In short, imagine Britain deteriorating into a Nazi like state with the complete suppression of freedom and democracy. As hard as this is to imagine, the Wachowski brothers (late of Matrix fame) have imagined it and brought it to the big screen complete with major actors and actresses (e.g. Natalie Portman) huge pyrotechnics, and an anti-hero named V who seeks to liberate Britain through the controlled use of violence against the oppressors. This film is not merely provocative, it is disturbing in every sense of the word, and it is meant to be.
The story begins with a brief historical review about Guy Fawkes—that chap who sought to blow up Parliament on Nov. 5th 1605, and was part of the failed Gun Powder Plot, which in typical British fashion is celebrated to this day on that date under the rubric of “Bonfire Night”--- a sort of pre-Halloween, Halloween party. Guy turns out to be V’s inspiration for his almost single handed attack on the tolitarian regime. Though the trailers and commentary on this movie that have been aired in North America try to draw analogies with the American Revolution, the analogies fail to convince. As it turns out the colonists had far less to riot about (namely ‘no taxation without representation) than our man V. Good King George and his successors looks like pussy cats compared to the malevolent, Hitler like creature V stands against. But in both cases it raises the question as to when a revolution might be justified. For a Christian it doubly raises this question since we are counseled rather clearly against all such conduct in the NT (cf. Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2.13-17.). We should bear in mind that Paul and Peter are counseling submission to Emperors and empires, not Presidents and democracies. In other words, the NT does not provide much a justification for the American revolution, since after all, freedom of religion was not really at stake in that war. We just wanted our independence from Queen Britannia, if the truth be told, and the ability to govern ourselves.
But let us consider a couple of the big and very interesting issues in this movie. One that V himself offers at several junctures in the movie is that ‘ideas’ are more important than mere lives. Particularly truth is said to be more important than life and freedom is seen as something worth killing for. The counter notion that persons are more important than truth is aired by the character that Natalie Portman plays, but this is the minority opinion it would seem in this movie. Only at the end of the movie, and in a weak moment does V say that unexpectedly he had come to love, and so he leaves the ultimate celebration of Guy Fawkes night in the heroine’s hands. She must decide what is to be done. What is not considered in this movie is the notion that truth is personal, and far more than an idea or ideal, and that love is likewise embodied in a person---namely Jesus. He is the truth and his life pattern is the way. The attempt to kill for an ideal, leaves blood on one’s hands, especially when the ideal has to do with truth or freedom or humanity or compassion. What is not really explored in this film is whether the ends ever real justifies these sorts of means.
The other real driving force in this movie is hate, and the desire for vengeance. V has been monstrously treated and nearly destroyed by the experimentations of the regime on undesirables. V becomes the avenging angel, bent on destroying those who attempted to destroy him. Not only physically has he been badly scarred beyond repair. He is also emotionally damaged as well, and sadly love does very little to repair the damage even to the end of the film. It has been said that revenge is a meal best served cold. If this is true, V for Vendetta provides us with the ultimate cold cuts--- complete with the steely knives of the Zorro like V. It is thus not surprising that one has more sympathy for Portman’s character--- a double victim of both the government’s and V’s fury, who has had to learn the hard way how to have the ‘fear’ of death scared out of her. One of the more seductive things about this movie is that it suggests that there is a certain beauty to violence, even total brutality, as some of the explosions are set to the music of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture.
The violence not only destroys the rulers, it also destroys the very symbols of democracy—such as Parliament. The motto or message seems to be the one delivered in the middle of things by V--- “People should not fear their governments, governments should fear there people.” Nothing redemptive here about healing of wounds, leading by example, the power of love and compassion. No it is an Orwellian mind-control world that is envisioned which is only destroyed by using the very same weapon of violence that the government had ruled with. And of course the underlying theme is “What really is terrorism?” This much I can say--- there is a rather thin line between justifiable revolution and terrorism—both of which acts see violence as justified to achieve their ends. But I would say all such acts defile us as Christians.
I would suggest that any act that involves a taking of innocent human lives is certainly a misuse of force, whether we wish to call it terrorism or not. It is also a violation of the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. The proper response to V for Vendetta, is F for Forgiveness, a lesson too little in evidence in our culture even now as we approach Holy Week. “Father forgive us, for we know not what we do.”
The story begins with a brief historical review about Guy Fawkes—that chap who sought to blow up Parliament on Nov. 5th 1605, and was part of the failed Gun Powder Plot, which in typical British fashion is celebrated to this day on that date under the rubric of “Bonfire Night”--- a sort of pre-Halloween, Halloween party. Guy turns out to be V’s inspiration for his almost single handed attack on the tolitarian regime. Though the trailers and commentary on this movie that have been aired in North America try to draw analogies with the American Revolution, the analogies fail to convince. As it turns out the colonists had far less to riot about (namely ‘no taxation without representation) than our man V. Good King George and his successors looks like pussy cats compared to the malevolent, Hitler like creature V stands against. But in both cases it raises the question as to when a revolution might be justified. For a Christian it doubly raises this question since we are counseled rather clearly against all such conduct in the NT (cf. Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2.13-17.). We should bear in mind that Paul and Peter are counseling submission to Emperors and empires, not Presidents and democracies. In other words, the NT does not provide much a justification for the American revolution, since after all, freedom of religion was not really at stake in that war. We just wanted our independence from Queen Britannia, if the truth be told, and the ability to govern ourselves.
But let us consider a couple of the big and very interesting issues in this movie. One that V himself offers at several junctures in the movie is that ‘ideas’ are more important than mere lives. Particularly truth is said to be more important than life and freedom is seen as something worth killing for. The counter notion that persons are more important than truth is aired by the character that Natalie Portman plays, but this is the minority opinion it would seem in this movie. Only at the end of the movie, and in a weak moment does V say that unexpectedly he had come to love, and so he leaves the ultimate celebration of Guy Fawkes night in the heroine’s hands. She must decide what is to be done. What is not considered in this movie is the notion that truth is personal, and far more than an idea or ideal, and that love is likewise embodied in a person---namely Jesus. He is the truth and his life pattern is the way. The attempt to kill for an ideal, leaves blood on one’s hands, especially when the ideal has to do with truth or freedom or humanity or compassion. What is not really explored in this film is whether the ends ever real justifies these sorts of means.
The other real driving force in this movie is hate, and the desire for vengeance. V has been monstrously treated and nearly destroyed by the experimentations of the regime on undesirables. V becomes the avenging angel, bent on destroying those who attempted to destroy him. Not only physically has he been badly scarred beyond repair. He is also emotionally damaged as well, and sadly love does very little to repair the damage even to the end of the film. It has been said that revenge is a meal best served cold. If this is true, V for Vendetta provides us with the ultimate cold cuts--- complete with the steely knives of the Zorro like V. It is thus not surprising that one has more sympathy for Portman’s character--- a double victim of both the government’s and V’s fury, who has had to learn the hard way how to have the ‘fear’ of death scared out of her. One of the more seductive things about this movie is that it suggests that there is a certain beauty to violence, even total brutality, as some of the explosions are set to the music of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture.
The violence not only destroys the rulers, it also destroys the very symbols of democracy—such as Parliament. The motto or message seems to be the one delivered in the middle of things by V--- “People should not fear their governments, governments should fear there people.” Nothing redemptive here about healing of wounds, leading by example, the power of love and compassion. No it is an Orwellian mind-control world that is envisioned which is only destroyed by using the very same weapon of violence that the government had ruled with. And of course the underlying theme is “What really is terrorism?” This much I can say--- there is a rather thin line between justifiable revolution and terrorism—both of which acts see violence as justified to achieve their ends. But I would say all such acts defile us as Christians.
I would suggest that any act that involves a taking of innocent human lives is certainly a misuse of force, whether we wish to call it terrorism or not. It is also a violation of the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. The proper response to V for Vendetta, is F for Forgiveness, a lesson too little in evidence in our culture even now as we approach Holy Week. “Father forgive us, for we know not what we do.”
The Gospel of Judas et al.---Part One
Right at Easter time, just as the dandelions are starting to appear in my yard, a new crop of theories about Jesus and the Gospels usually pop up as well, often rushed into the Easter market. Clearly the appropriate amount of fertilizer has been applied to these supposed 'new revelations' to make such hot house theories grow, seemingly over night.
We have "The Jesus Papers" reviving the old "Passover Plot" theory that Jesus never really died on the cross, he only swooned and was revived, a theory supported by no first century source whatsoever (even our Roman sources are clear that he was executed under Pontius Pilate--- see Tacitus and Suetonius), and with much more fan fare we also have the Gospel of Judas which we have known about for a long time. It is yet another Gnostic document, which Elaine Pagels says helps to explode the theory of a monolithic early Christianity. Of course the only conservative Protestant scholar of the group National Geographic engaged to comment on this work, Craig Evans, has a very different take on the matter. So do I. So also do conservative Catholic scholars.
First let us deal with the facts: 1) we do not have a Greek text of this Gospel, we have a Coptic one from which the English translation has been made. To simply state this text was based on Greek text is to argue without hard evidence. The fact that Irenaeus mentions this document may suggest there was a Greek original, but we do not have it, and the translation done is not based on any Greek text. We need to be clear on this: 2) You will find a link above to the article in today's NY Times about this find. You will see me suggesting we all need to take a deep breath before consuming too much baloney; 3) this papyrus carbon dates to about 300 A.D. We only know some document called the Gospel of Judas existed around 180 because Irenaeus mentions it. One could also raise the question of whether Irenaeus is referring to the same document, but probably he is. 4) This document reflects the same sort of dualism that we find in many other Gnostic documents-- matter or flesh is evil or tainted, spirit is good. Thus at one juncture in the Gospel of Judas Jesus says to Judas that he will become the top disciple for "you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." In other words Judas is the good guy who helps Jesus get rid of his tainted flesh and become a true spiritual and free being.
This of course is miles from early Jewish theology about the goodness of creation and the flesh, much less the belief that God intends to redeem the flesh by means of resurrection. Much of what Jesus is depicted as saying in the Gospel of Judas the historical, thoroughly Jewish, resurrection believing Jesus could never have said. In other words it is revisionist history being done by a splinter group of Gnostics. This group was at variance with the theology and praxis of the church whose beliefs could in fact be traced back to Jesus and his earliest disciples.
But my greater concern is not so much with this document which is interesting and tells us more about the Gnostic heresy of the 2nd-4th centuries. This is important to know about and reminds us just how vibrant early Christianity was that it could create secatrian split off groups like the Gnostics. My greater concern is the revisionist history being tauted by Elaine Pagels, Karen King, Bart Ehrman, Marvin Meyer and others, on the basis of such Gnostic documents, wanting to suggest that somehow, someway these documents reflect Christianity at its very point of origin--- the first century A.D.
Such scholars indeed represent a small minority of NT scholarship, and in fact, like the early Gnostics, are busily creating a new myth of origins that suggests that Christianity was dramatically pluriform from the beginning. Unfortunately, as a historian I have to say that this is argument without first century evidence.
We have no first century evidence of Gnostics or Gnosticism. This is a movement that reacted to mainstream Christianity, and emerged from it sometime in the middle of the second century A.D. Every shred of first century evidence we have suggests that the actual physical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was at the heart of the belief of the earliest Christians--- all of whom were Jews, not Gnostics. It simply will not do to suggest that the esoteric Gospel of the Gnostics bears any resemblance to the Jewish creation and redemption theology of Jesus and his first Jewish followers.
More will be said on this after the National Geographic special on Palm Sunday.
We have "The Jesus Papers" reviving the old "Passover Plot" theory that Jesus never really died on the cross, he only swooned and was revived, a theory supported by no first century source whatsoever (even our Roman sources are clear that he was executed under Pontius Pilate--- see Tacitus and Suetonius), and with much more fan fare we also have the Gospel of Judas which we have known about for a long time. It is yet another Gnostic document, which Elaine Pagels says helps to explode the theory of a monolithic early Christianity. Of course the only conservative Protestant scholar of the group National Geographic engaged to comment on this work, Craig Evans, has a very different take on the matter. So do I. So also do conservative Catholic scholars.
First let us deal with the facts: 1) we do not have a Greek text of this Gospel, we have a Coptic one from which the English translation has been made. To simply state this text was based on Greek text is to argue without hard evidence. The fact that Irenaeus mentions this document may suggest there was a Greek original, but we do not have it, and the translation done is not based on any Greek text. We need to be clear on this: 2) You will find a link above to the article in today's NY Times about this find. You will see me suggesting we all need to take a deep breath before consuming too much baloney; 3) this papyrus carbon dates to about 300 A.D. We only know some document called the Gospel of Judas existed around 180 because Irenaeus mentions it. One could also raise the question of whether Irenaeus is referring to the same document, but probably he is. 4) This document reflects the same sort of dualism that we find in many other Gnostic documents-- matter or flesh is evil or tainted, spirit is good. Thus at one juncture in the Gospel of Judas Jesus says to Judas that he will become the top disciple for "you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." In other words Judas is the good guy who helps Jesus get rid of his tainted flesh and become a true spiritual and free being.
This of course is miles from early Jewish theology about the goodness of creation and the flesh, much less the belief that God intends to redeem the flesh by means of resurrection. Much of what Jesus is depicted as saying in the Gospel of Judas the historical, thoroughly Jewish, resurrection believing Jesus could never have said. In other words it is revisionist history being done by a splinter group of Gnostics. This group was at variance with the theology and praxis of the church whose beliefs could in fact be traced back to Jesus and his earliest disciples.
But my greater concern is not so much with this document which is interesting and tells us more about the Gnostic heresy of the 2nd-4th centuries. This is important to know about and reminds us just how vibrant early Christianity was that it could create secatrian split off groups like the Gnostics. My greater concern is the revisionist history being tauted by Elaine Pagels, Karen King, Bart Ehrman, Marvin Meyer and others, on the basis of such Gnostic documents, wanting to suggest that somehow, someway these documents reflect Christianity at its very point of origin--- the first century A.D.
Such scholars indeed represent a small minority of NT scholarship, and in fact, like the early Gnostics, are busily creating a new myth of origins that suggests that Christianity was dramatically pluriform from the beginning. Unfortunately, as a historian I have to say that this is argument without first century evidence.
We have no first century evidence of Gnostics or Gnosticism. This is a movement that reacted to mainstream Christianity, and emerged from it sometime in the middle of the second century A.D. Every shred of first century evidence we have suggests that the actual physical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was at the heart of the belief of the earliest Christians--- all of whom were Jews, not Gnostics. It simply will not do to suggest that the esoteric Gospel of the Gnostics bears any resemblance to the Jewish creation and redemption theology of Jesus and his first Jewish followers.
More will be said on this after the National Geographic special on Palm Sunday.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Ice Age-- the Melt Down
My wife and I were riding on the Norwegian Cruise Lines boat up the Inland Passage to a glacier in Alaska. There was a problem. For the first time since cruises had been going up this passage we could not get to the glacier. Why? Because huge chunks of ice had prematurely broken off the glacier and blocked the passage. Then there is the pictures of the polar cap which has lost 21% of its mass in the last twenty years. Then finally there was the piece of ice the size of Rhode Island which broke off from Greenland recently. And they say there is no global warming. But the scientific evidence and the scientific community worldwide are nearly unanimous on this subject. Its just politicians who would like us to think otherwise.
Well now we have a children's movie meant to raise this issue with those of an impressionable age, and I would see this as a good thing. The story line is simple. Manny the woolly mammoth, Syd the sloth, Diego the saber tooth tiger, and Scrat the squirrel are all in deep trouble because the ice is melting rapidly. They need to get to a place of safety (and lo and behold it is a sort of ark) so they will not be drowned. The movie centers around the journey to the ark and the creatures they meet and the misadventures that our intrepid heroes have along the way. Oh yes there is romance between Manny and a female mammoth played by Queen Latifah, who was raised by possums and thinks she is one and so she hangs upside down on tree limbs (until they break). A totally plausible plot line for sure.
The story is not told in a heavy handed way, as it is of course a children's cartoon in movie length form. The CG is excellent, and shows advances over the first Ice Age tale, but the story line is not as taut, and the laughs not as frequent as the first movie. I was in a theater full of children, and there was not a lot of raucous laughter this time around. But then the sequels are usually not quite as good as the originals.
Several features of the movie are worth comment however. Firstly there are indeed some hilarious scenes. The vulture course line rendition of "Food glorious food" is great. The two possums, Crash and Eddie are a welcome addition to the menagerie as well. And its a nice touch to have Diego the tiger overcome his fear of water to help rescue friends.
There are some good one liners--- for instance when Manny and the gang come across a particularly noxious creature, and Syd stresses that he "puts the stink back in extinction". Of all the voices in the movie Ray Romano's as Manny the wooly mammoth will be the most recognizable and he does a good job of bringing some human and humorous tones to the dialogue and story line. And of course Queen Latifah brings her own special charm to the role of Elly.
Lastly of course this movie has finally answered the big question for all true creationists. In one scene we are told that the dinosaurs were extinct before the mammoths and saber tooth tigers, because "they got greedy", but that our heroes lived to see the day of the ark. So now we know for sure--- there were wooly mammoths and saber tooth tigers on the ark! I am feeling relieved to know this. Of course this also means that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years old :)
Well now we have a children's movie meant to raise this issue with those of an impressionable age, and I would see this as a good thing. The story line is simple. Manny the woolly mammoth, Syd the sloth, Diego the saber tooth tiger, and Scrat the squirrel are all in deep trouble because the ice is melting rapidly. They need to get to a place of safety (and lo and behold it is a sort of ark) so they will not be drowned. The movie centers around the journey to the ark and the creatures they meet and the misadventures that our intrepid heroes have along the way. Oh yes there is romance between Manny and a female mammoth played by Queen Latifah, who was raised by possums and thinks she is one and so she hangs upside down on tree limbs (until they break). A totally plausible plot line for sure.
The story is not told in a heavy handed way, as it is of course a children's cartoon in movie length form. The CG is excellent, and shows advances over the first Ice Age tale, but the story line is not as taut, and the laughs not as frequent as the first movie. I was in a theater full of children, and there was not a lot of raucous laughter this time around. But then the sequels are usually not quite as good as the originals.
Several features of the movie are worth comment however. Firstly there are indeed some hilarious scenes. The vulture course line rendition of "Food glorious food" is great. The two possums, Crash and Eddie are a welcome addition to the menagerie as well. And its a nice touch to have Diego the tiger overcome his fear of water to help rescue friends.
There are some good one liners--- for instance when Manny and the gang come across a particularly noxious creature, and Syd stresses that he "puts the stink back in extinction". Of all the voices in the movie Ray Romano's as Manny the wooly mammoth will be the most recognizable and he does a good job of bringing some human and humorous tones to the dialogue and story line. And of course Queen Latifah brings her own special charm to the role of Elly.
Lastly of course this movie has finally answered the big question for all true creationists. In one scene we are told that the dinosaurs were extinct before the mammoths and saber tooth tigers, because "they got greedy", but that our heroes lived to see the day of the ark. So now we know for sure--- there were wooly mammoths and saber tooth tigers on the ark! I am feeling relieved to know this. Of course this also means that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years old :)
Thursday, March 30, 2006
What's Wrong with Prospering? The Gospel according to Joel Osteen
As the offering is about to be taken at the Compaq center, Joel Osteen's wife and co-pastor Victoria urges generosity as a way of prompting God's favor. "He not only wants to enrich you but do things for you you know nothing about," she said. "Let him breathe the breath of life into your finances and he'll give it back to you bigger than you could ever give it to him," she said. To which the congregation, said, "Amen," and the buckets went around. This paraphrased excerpt is but a part of a new article in today's NY Times about the ministry and enormous success of Joel Osteen, and in particular his recent book 'Your Best Life Now'. The whole article is worth reading. Here is the link.----http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/books/30oste.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
With 20,000 peeople regularly showing up at his church in the Compaq center in Houston and bringing in revenues of millions on his bestseller book, it is not a surprise that many will wonder and ask--- well what is wrong with a message that speaks about kindness, and generosity and success and prosperity? What could be wrong with this? What's wrong with a message that hardly ever mentions Jesus by name, or sin, or suffering, or self-sacrifice? Of course this message of prosperity is not new in America, nor new to American Churches.
There used to be a TV preacher from New York called Reverend Ike. One of his core messages was on the supposed Scriptural topic--- "The lack of money is the root of all evil". He kept saying things like, if you have trouble handling money, send it to me. Osteen is far more slick than this, and in fact far more accountable. His ministry maintains public records and provides financial reports, and in fact he has not taken a salary since his book went mega-platinum. He has also reportedly signed an enormous contract for his second book with Simon and Schuster. He is then not a shister or a crook it would appear. His example seemsfar more beguiling than the obvious huckster. Wherein lies the problem then?
The problem is several fold, and it involves a fundamental replacement of what the Bible actually has to say about wealth, with what our culture says about wealth and prosperity. And of course when you preach a message that is heard as saying "God wants you rich" or is heard as saying "if you give generously to God (i.e. our ministry) he will repay you many times over"), then of course the implication is that the Gospel message is really all about us, and ways to get God to fulfill not merely our needs and desires but even our conspicuously consumptive dreams. But is God really a nurturer of a vision of life that says its all about me and my material success?
How very different indeed this message is from John Wesley's Famous Sermon "On the Use of Money" in which he stresses that if you make all you can honestly and save all you can, but do not give all you can to relieve poverty, feed the hungry, make well the sick you may be a living person but you are a dead Christian. Wesley like the Bible warns of the enormous dangers of wealth, especially if it is used to provide one's self with an opulent lifestyle while others have nothing to survive on. As Wesley suggests my luxuries should always come after someone else's necessities, or I am living a selfish and self-centered life style. Wesley preached that Christians at the beginning of the industrial revolution should de-enculturate themselves, live simply, and have as their goal, giving so much to others during their lives that when they die they will have successfully given it all away. This sounds far less narcissitic and self-centered than the message of Osteen. And it comes from a different vision of God. God is not viewed as the grand sugar Daddy in the sky who exists to meet our every desire, and in particular our desire to live well, or even opulently. But forget the warnings of great church leaders of the past--- what does the Bible say about such things?
First of all, I would stress that there are more warning about wealth in the New Testament, than about any other ethical subject with the possible exception of sexual and relational issues. And right off the bat this ought to seem odd to us, since only a small percentage of first century Christians had any prospect of getting wealthy. Why such a stress on a message that is the polar opposite to Osteen's message in the NT when the audience was much poorer on the whole? It is a question worth asking. It has to do with fallen human nature and its desire to secure its own life on its own. But let's start with some texts we will not likely be hearing preached from Osteen's pulpit. Let's start with Jesus.
The Sermon on the Mount would be Jesus' version of "Your Best Life Now". In it he says "Do not store up for yourselvss trasures on earth where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Mt. 6. 19-20.
This saying of course comes before the "do not worry about what you will eat, drink, or wear, because God will provide" message in 6.25-33. This text warns strongly against the accumulation of wealth, and in particular having and keeping for yourself more than you need. Jesus' real concern is found at the end of vs. 21 in the saying about treasure. Human beings are acquistive by nature-- consider how many Americans are addicted to shopping. Consider how our culture encourages us to think luxuries and necessities to the point that we can't tell the difference between the two.
If you want to know where a person's heart really is--- follow the money. This could be said of all of us. And what happens to already self-centered acquistive persons when they are encouraged to be even more that way is that they commit idolatry. Their real center of existence is not God. They only relate to God for what they can get out of God. Their real center of existence is their own prosperity and life style--- "God bless my standard of living". we should have seen Osteen coming when the "Prayer of Jabez" became a run away best-seller and an excuse for continuing to think that God wants us all to be rich, even if it destroys our soul.
Notice as well that Jesus says quite clearly three things at the end of Mt. 6: 1) we should seek first God's kingdom and his righteousness, and the necessities of life will be added to us. Jesus does not say anything about wealth will be added to us. He says the necessities will be taken care of if we are God-focused and seeking his righteousness, not our profit. And while we are at it it is well to remember that when Jesus says "ask anything in my name..." this means "ask anything that is in accord with my will, in accord with all my other teaching about the dangers of money and wealth, the sorts of things I would ask for". If you are praying prayers Jesus would not endorse, selfish and self-centered prayers, prayers about purely material success then you had best not sign Jesus' name to them, nor should you expect him to answer yes to them. 2) Jesus' teaching consistently tries to get us to focus on God and others, not our own desires or needs.
This is not in fact the character of Osteen's preaching unfortunately. He is doing his best to make us feel comfortable and happy if we are wealthy, and to simply see it as a blessing from God. But even if on occasion God does bless someone with abundant material resources, the next question should be stewardship. The next question should be how should I use these resources so that God is glorified and others are helped. It should not lead to a "God bless my standard of living" and we give ourselves permission to live high off the hog. There should always be the thught that God has blessed you to be an abundant blessing to others, and I don't just mean one's own family.
Mt. 6. 24--- "You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and wealth." The issue is what is your object of ultimate concern? Where is your heart and treasure? When you take a human being who is acquisitive to begin with, and then take away all warnings about the dangers of wealth leading to idolatry, you are in trouble.
Someone should make a huge banner with this verse on it and hang it in front of the Compaq Center for all those entering to see. We could also hang up the Lukan beatitude "Blesssed are the poor" (Lk. 6.20). How about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16.19-31) which suggests that those who prosper in this life and do not help others will find the reverse is their condition in the life to come. So much for the slogan "he who dies with the most toys wins". We could also focus on Jesus' teaching about the fool who stockpiled his assests and of whom God required his life before he could get the full benefit from them. Have you notice that there is no theology of retirement, or pension accounts in the New Testament, no blessing of those who store things away just for themselves?
Jesus' brother James is equally insistent about the dangers of wealth. Read James 2.1-7 where we hear among other things "God chose the poor of the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom." He warns not to cozy up to the wealthy or give them preferential treatment not least because "Is it not the rich who oppress you?" You would have thought that after the Enron scandal the good Christian people of Houston would have become a little more wary of courting the rich and of lusting after the lifestyles of the rich.
Listen to what else James says "You covet something and cannot obtain it: so you engage in disputes and conflicts...You ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures. Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God." (James 4.2-6).
Paul in 1 Tim. 6.6-10 puts it this way "There is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; for we brought nothing into this world, and we shall take nothing out of it; but if we have food and clothing we will be content with these. But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a rot of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains." There could hardly be a much sterner warning against believing in the health and wealth Gospel than this one.
We need to stop listening to the siren song of our culture about the goodness of personal wealth and material prosperity. We need to advocate a theology of stewardship which puts other people's necessities before our luxuries. We need to simplify our lifestyles and get a clear grasp on God's prioirties including God's especial concern for the poor and destitute of the world. We need to realize that what Jesus promised us if we seek the kingdom is not prosperity,but rather 'just enough' to take care of our basic needs. We need to remember that the Lord's prayer teaches us to pray for daily bread, not for resources today that I could not possibly use in 10,000 lifetimes. We need to heed all the warnings about how wealth can destroy the soul of an inherently self centered and acquistive creature-- namely any human being. We need to renounce the false gospel of wealth and health--- it is a disease of our American culture, it is not a solution or answer to life's problems.
Sometime ago when Donald Trump was riding high, he was interviewed on the subject of "how much is enough?" This was after he had assets totaling in the millions. His answer was very revealing--- "a little bit more." This is the truth about human nature, and what Paul says about that nature is that it needs to be crucified, not indulged, it needs to die not be pampered. The goal is this "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I wholive, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved mne and gave himsellf for me." (Gal. 2.19-20). The model for the Christian life is not Donald Trump, it is that man who made the ultimate self-sacrifice, the man who lived simply, fed the hungry, hung out with the poor, and renounced conspicuous consumption--- Jesus himself.
With 20,000 peeople regularly showing up at his church in the Compaq center in Houston and bringing in revenues of millions on his bestseller book, it is not a surprise that many will wonder and ask--- well what is wrong with a message that speaks about kindness, and generosity and success and prosperity? What could be wrong with this? What's wrong with a message that hardly ever mentions Jesus by name, or sin, or suffering, or self-sacrifice? Of course this message of prosperity is not new in America, nor new to American Churches.
There used to be a TV preacher from New York called Reverend Ike. One of his core messages was on the supposed Scriptural topic--- "The lack of money is the root of all evil". He kept saying things like, if you have trouble handling money, send it to me. Osteen is far more slick than this, and in fact far more accountable. His ministry maintains public records and provides financial reports, and in fact he has not taken a salary since his book went mega-platinum. He has also reportedly signed an enormous contract for his second book with Simon and Schuster. He is then not a shister or a crook it would appear. His example seemsfar more beguiling than the obvious huckster. Wherein lies the problem then?
The problem is several fold, and it involves a fundamental replacement of what the Bible actually has to say about wealth, with what our culture says about wealth and prosperity. And of course when you preach a message that is heard as saying "God wants you rich" or is heard as saying "if you give generously to God (i.e. our ministry) he will repay you many times over"), then of course the implication is that the Gospel message is really all about us, and ways to get God to fulfill not merely our needs and desires but even our conspicuously consumptive dreams. But is God really a nurturer of a vision of life that says its all about me and my material success?
How very different indeed this message is from John Wesley's Famous Sermon "On the Use of Money" in which he stresses that if you make all you can honestly and save all you can, but do not give all you can to relieve poverty, feed the hungry, make well the sick you may be a living person but you are a dead Christian. Wesley like the Bible warns of the enormous dangers of wealth, especially if it is used to provide one's self with an opulent lifestyle while others have nothing to survive on. As Wesley suggests my luxuries should always come after someone else's necessities, or I am living a selfish and self-centered life style. Wesley preached that Christians at the beginning of the industrial revolution should de-enculturate themselves, live simply, and have as their goal, giving so much to others during their lives that when they die they will have successfully given it all away. This sounds far less narcissitic and self-centered than the message of Osteen. And it comes from a different vision of God. God is not viewed as the grand sugar Daddy in the sky who exists to meet our every desire, and in particular our desire to live well, or even opulently. But forget the warnings of great church leaders of the past--- what does the Bible say about such things?
First of all, I would stress that there are more warning about wealth in the New Testament, than about any other ethical subject with the possible exception of sexual and relational issues. And right off the bat this ought to seem odd to us, since only a small percentage of first century Christians had any prospect of getting wealthy. Why such a stress on a message that is the polar opposite to Osteen's message in the NT when the audience was much poorer on the whole? It is a question worth asking. It has to do with fallen human nature and its desire to secure its own life on its own. But let's start with some texts we will not likely be hearing preached from Osteen's pulpit. Let's start with Jesus.
The Sermon on the Mount would be Jesus' version of "Your Best Life Now". In it he says "Do not store up for yourselvss trasures on earth where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Mt. 6. 19-20.
This saying of course comes before the "do not worry about what you will eat, drink, or wear, because God will provide" message in 6.25-33. This text warns strongly against the accumulation of wealth, and in particular having and keeping for yourself more than you need. Jesus' real concern is found at the end of vs. 21 in the saying about treasure. Human beings are acquistive by nature-- consider how many Americans are addicted to shopping. Consider how our culture encourages us to think luxuries and necessities to the point that we can't tell the difference between the two.
If you want to know where a person's heart really is--- follow the money. This could be said of all of us. And what happens to already self-centered acquistive persons when they are encouraged to be even more that way is that they commit idolatry. Their real center of existence is not God. They only relate to God for what they can get out of God. Their real center of existence is their own prosperity and life style--- "God bless my standard of living". we should have seen Osteen coming when the "Prayer of Jabez" became a run away best-seller and an excuse for continuing to think that God wants us all to be rich, even if it destroys our soul.
Notice as well that Jesus says quite clearly three things at the end of Mt. 6: 1) we should seek first God's kingdom and his righteousness, and the necessities of life will be added to us. Jesus does not say anything about wealth will be added to us. He says the necessities will be taken care of if we are God-focused and seeking his righteousness, not our profit. And while we are at it it is well to remember that when Jesus says "ask anything in my name..." this means "ask anything that is in accord with my will, in accord with all my other teaching about the dangers of money and wealth, the sorts of things I would ask for". If you are praying prayers Jesus would not endorse, selfish and self-centered prayers, prayers about purely material success then you had best not sign Jesus' name to them, nor should you expect him to answer yes to them. 2) Jesus' teaching consistently tries to get us to focus on God and others, not our own desires or needs.
This is not in fact the character of Osteen's preaching unfortunately. He is doing his best to make us feel comfortable and happy if we are wealthy, and to simply see it as a blessing from God. But even if on occasion God does bless someone with abundant material resources, the next question should be stewardship. The next question should be how should I use these resources so that God is glorified and others are helped. It should not lead to a "God bless my standard of living" and we give ourselves permission to live high off the hog. There should always be the thught that God has blessed you to be an abundant blessing to others, and I don't just mean one's own family.
Mt. 6. 24--- "You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and wealth." The issue is what is your object of ultimate concern? Where is your heart and treasure? When you take a human being who is acquisitive to begin with, and then take away all warnings about the dangers of wealth leading to idolatry, you are in trouble.
Someone should make a huge banner with this verse on it and hang it in front of the Compaq Center for all those entering to see. We could also hang up the Lukan beatitude "Blesssed are the poor" (Lk. 6.20). How about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16.19-31) which suggests that those who prosper in this life and do not help others will find the reverse is their condition in the life to come. So much for the slogan "he who dies with the most toys wins". We could also focus on Jesus' teaching about the fool who stockpiled his assests and of whom God required his life before he could get the full benefit from them. Have you notice that there is no theology of retirement, or pension accounts in the New Testament, no blessing of those who store things away just for themselves?
Jesus' brother James is equally insistent about the dangers of wealth. Read James 2.1-7 where we hear among other things "God chose the poor of the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom." He warns not to cozy up to the wealthy or give them preferential treatment not least because "Is it not the rich who oppress you?" You would have thought that after the Enron scandal the good Christian people of Houston would have become a little more wary of courting the rich and of lusting after the lifestyles of the rich.
Listen to what else James says "You covet something and cannot obtain it: so you engage in disputes and conflicts...You ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures. Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God." (James 4.2-6).
Paul in 1 Tim. 6.6-10 puts it this way "There is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; for we brought nothing into this world, and we shall take nothing out of it; but if we have food and clothing we will be content with these. But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a rot of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains." There could hardly be a much sterner warning against believing in the health and wealth Gospel than this one.
We need to stop listening to the siren song of our culture about the goodness of personal wealth and material prosperity. We need to advocate a theology of stewardship which puts other people's necessities before our luxuries. We need to simplify our lifestyles and get a clear grasp on God's prioirties including God's especial concern for the poor and destitute of the world. We need to realize that what Jesus promised us if we seek the kingdom is not prosperity,but rather 'just enough' to take care of our basic needs. We need to remember that the Lord's prayer teaches us to pray for daily bread, not for resources today that I could not possibly use in 10,000 lifetimes. We need to heed all the warnings about how wealth can destroy the soul of an inherently self centered and acquistive creature-- namely any human being. We need to renounce the false gospel of wealth and health--- it is a disease of our American culture, it is not a solution or answer to life's problems.
Sometime ago when Donald Trump was riding high, he was interviewed on the subject of "how much is enough?" This was after he had assets totaling in the millions. His answer was very revealing--- "a little bit more." This is the truth about human nature, and what Paul says about that nature is that it needs to be crucified, not indulged, it needs to die not be pampered. The goal is this "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I wholive, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved mne and gave himsellf for me." (Gal. 2.19-20). The model for the Christian life is not Donald Trump, it is that man who made the ultimate self-sacrifice, the man who lived simply, fed the hungry, hung out with the poor, and renounced conspicuous consumption--- Jesus himself.
Monday, March 27, 2006
WORDSHAPED
Partial and piecemeal, here and there
Vowels omitted, consonants square
No jots or tittles, not one iota
As if there was, a letter quota.
Line upon line, word for word
Nopunctuationseparationabsurd
Scriptum continuum without an end
Space is so precious, conventions must bend
Fair hand copy, stylus in hand
Awaiting dictation, write on demand
Line length is even, no letters odd
So it must be--- the Word of God.
Written revelation, unveiled truth
Put on papyrus, sold from a booth
Unroll the scroll, unseal the seal
Meant to inform, not to conceal.
Nomina sacra, the Holy Name
In abbreviation, meaning the same
IX, XC, IHS too
Jehovah combines, God’s name times two.
Inspired authors, inspiring text
God breathed words, soul resurrects
Let it be written, let it be done
Fulfilling fulfillment, victory won.
In the beginning, God chose to speak
Creation created, in under a week
Even the last Word, God will have too
Alpha-Omega, indwelling you.
3/26/06
THEOLOGICAL MUSINGS
One of the more fascinating subjects to reflect on Biblically speaking is the theology of the Word. We are apt to see words as just combinations of letters or ciphers or symbols, but this is not how the ancients, living in an overwhelming oral culture, saw words. Words spoke things into existence if they came from God. Genesis 1 is quite explicit about this. But the Word could not only create reality, it could become a human being as John 1 says---‘and the Word took on flesh’. Clearly the ancients saw words in a different light than moderns tend to do. Even in Rev. 19.13 when John of Patmos wants to unveil the final mystery he tells us that the Word of God will leap forth from heaven once more to bring closure to the drama of history. Its not just the Author stepping out on the stage at the end of the play, though that is true, it is that the author becomes the last Word, the last act of the play, bringing it to its proper conclusion.
In this poem I have tried to share some of the things about how the Word came to us through the hands of the ancient scribes, who had as their tools, a stylus, some water made black with soot, a papyrus roll, and a very steady hand and ability to take dictation on the fly. It is hard to even imagine how laborious it was where every single copy of every single page had to be hand-copied—word for word. If it was possible the scribe would use a wax tablet to copy the words first there, and then make a fair hand copy on a scroll since papyrus was quite expensive (as was hiring a scribe). Words took on almost a magical quality, especially religious or sacred ones, and especially the name of a Deity in such an oral culture.
It is all the more interesting then that Christian scribes chose to use abbreviations for the divine names--- XC—Christos kurios; IX Iesous Christos; IHS the first three letters of the Greek word for Jesus, though later it was used in Latin to stand for ‘in hoc signo’--- in this Name. Experienced scribes knew that God’s names would be mentioned more than all others, and so they developed these sacred abbreviations, called nomina sacra. But it was the Christian theology that the sacred Word not only could create reality or come in person, it could also indwell and thus inspire ordinary mortals like me and you. In the end, there is no last word on the Word. There is far too much to unveil and to ponder.
Vowels omitted, consonants square
No jots or tittles, not one iota
As if there was, a letter quota.
Line upon line, word for word
Nopunctuationseparationabsurd
Scriptum continuum without an end
Space is so precious, conventions must bend
Fair hand copy, stylus in hand
Awaiting dictation, write on demand
Line length is even, no letters odd
So it must be--- the Word of God.
Written revelation, unveiled truth
Put on papyrus, sold from a booth
Unroll the scroll, unseal the seal
Meant to inform, not to conceal.
Nomina sacra, the Holy Name
In abbreviation, meaning the same
IX, XC, IHS too
Jehovah combines, God’s name times two.
Inspired authors, inspiring text
God breathed words, soul resurrects
Let it be written, let it be done
Fulfilling fulfillment, victory won.
In the beginning, God chose to speak
Creation created, in under a week
Even the last Word, God will have too
Alpha-Omega, indwelling you.
3/26/06
THEOLOGICAL MUSINGS
One of the more fascinating subjects to reflect on Biblically speaking is the theology of the Word. We are apt to see words as just combinations of letters or ciphers or symbols, but this is not how the ancients, living in an overwhelming oral culture, saw words. Words spoke things into existence if they came from God. Genesis 1 is quite explicit about this. But the Word could not only create reality, it could become a human being as John 1 says---‘and the Word took on flesh’. Clearly the ancients saw words in a different light than moderns tend to do. Even in Rev. 19.13 when John of Patmos wants to unveil the final mystery he tells us that the Word of God will leap forth from heaven once more to bring closure to the drama of history. Its not just the Author stepping out on the stage at the end of the play, though that is true, it is that the author becomes the last Word, the last act of the play, bringing it to its proper conclusion.
In this poem I have tried to share some of the things about how the Word came to us through the hands of the ancient scribes, who had as their tools, a stylus, some water made black with soot, a papyrus roll, and a very steady hand and ability to take dictation on the fly. It is hard to even imagine how laborious it was where every single copy of every single page had to be hand-copied—word for word. If it was possible the scribe would use a wax tablet to copy the words first there, and then make a fair hand copy on a scroll since papyrus was quite expensive (as was hiring a scribe). Words took on almost a magical quality, especially religious or sacred ones, and especially the name of a Deity in such an oral culture.
It is all the more interesting then that Christian scribes chose to use abbreviations for the divine names--- XC—Christos kurios; IX Iesous Christos; IHS the first three letters of the Greek word for Jesus, though later it was used in Latin to stand for ‘in hoc signo’--- in this Name. Experienced scribes knew that God’s names would be mentioned more than all others, and so they developed these sacred abbreviations, called nomina sacra. But it was the Christian theology that the sacred Word not only could create reality or come in person, it could also indwell and thus inspire ordinary mortals like me and you. In the end, there is no last word on the Word. There is far too much to unveil and to ponder.
Friday, March 24, 2006
What's inside the 'Inside Man'?
Its been a while since there has been a really thought provoking and interesting drama or thriller that does not rely on gimics, special effects, or large impressive sets or scenic vistas, but we have one now in Spike Lee's sparkling new film 'Inside Man'. Filmed largely in a single bank location and its surroundings this film is long on story and acting, and does not require razzamatazz to carry the film along. It is an example of old fashioned film-making at its best, and what a cast it has! We have Christopher Plummer as the regal Mr. Chase the owner of the Manhattan Bank in question, we have Willem Defoe as a police captain, we have Denzel Washington as the dashing Detective Frazier, we have Jody Foster as Ms. White the deal maker and intervention specialist, and we have Clive Owen as the mastermind bad guy--- or is he?
In one sense this drama is a morality play, as we see how different persons, in a crisis, are prepared to compromise their ethics either to survive, or profit or get revenge, or rescue hostages. But this is no ordinary hostage movie, because the bandit in question is not actually a bankrobber, nor has he any desire to kill any of those trapped in the bank when it is taken over by Clive Owen's gang.
The tension in the narrative is not caused by the question of whether the hostages will be released or not, for periodically throughout the movie we see them being debriefed by Frazier after they have been freed. No, the drama is driven by a series of related questions, for example--- What exactly do these bank robbers want? What are they after? It is clearly not money, or attention, or ransom for hostages. And what is it that Mr. Chase has hidden in that secret safety deposit box in that bank of his, which he is prepared to do anything to make sure is not revealed? But there is so much more.
Lee also explores racism and bigotry of all sorts on and off the NY police force throughout the movie, but he does it with a light touch. At one point Frazier (i.e. Washington) listening to the complaints of police brutality by a Indian Sikkh employee of the bank, complains his rights were trampled on and asks when he and his religion will be respected (he keeps asking for his turban to be returned). When he can't get even this, Frazier points out that at least one thing is going his way-- "I bet you don't have any trouble getting a cab", because of course there are so many Indian cab drivers in Manhattan. New York is seen as the melting pot that is more like a salad bowl where all the different nationalities exist side by side, but without blending together very much.
In an ensemble cast of this kind one could have wished perhaps for a bit longer film so Jodie Foster and Christopher Plummer had even more opportunity to shine. There is no question but that Washington is the star of the show, but there are many wonderful bit parts and scenes which enrich the story, not the least of which is the 9 year old African American kid from Brooklyn who gives both the bankrobbers and the police his 'shtick" without fear. Would that there were more movies that were long on story and acting, and short on gimics.
But at the end of the day there is a further profound question underlying this film. Does a lifetime of good works, make up for some hideous sin of the past or should we say 'be sure your sins will find you out'? The supposed bad guy is the one who raises the deeper questions about love and truth. Spike Lee is smart enough and respects his audience enough to not tie up all the loose ends. And several aspects of the movie can be debated. But this is the sign of a good story which scares up more rabbits than it chases down. It will take a lot for there to be a better drama than this one this year. Ron Howard and the Da Vinci Code crew has just been put on notice.
In one sense this drama is a morality play, as we see how different persons, in a crisis, are prepared to compromise their ethics either to survive, or profit or get revenge, or rescue hostages. But this is no ordinary hostage movie, because the bandit in question is not actually a bankrobber, nor has he any desire to kill any of those trapped in the bank when it is taken over by Clive Owen's gang.
The tension in the narrative is not caused by the question of whether the hostages will be released or not, for periodically throughout the movie we see them being debriefed by Frazier after they have been freed. No, the drama is driven by a series of related questions, for example--- What exactly do these bank robbers want? What are they after? It is clearly not money, or attention, or ransom for hostages. And what is it that Mr. Chase has hidden in that secret safety deposit box in that bank of his, which he is prepared to do anything to make sure is not revealed? But there is so much more.
Lee also explores racism and bigotry of all sorts on and off the NY police force throughout the movie, but he does it with a light touch. At one point Frazier (i.e. Washington) listening to the complaints of police brutality by a Indian Sikkh employee of the bank, complains his rights were trampled on and asks when he and his religion will be respected (he keeps asking for his turban to be returned). When he can't get even this, Frazier points out that at least one thing is going his way-- "I bet you don't have any trouble getting a cab", because of course there are so many Indian cab drivers in Manhattan. New York is seen as the melting pot that is more like a salad bowl where all the different nationalities exist side by side, but without blending together very much.
In an ensemble cast of this kind one could have wished perhaps for a bit longer film so Jodie Foster and Christopher Plummer had even more opportunity to shine. There is no question but that Washington is the star of the show, but there are many wonderful bit parts and scenes which enrich the story, not the least of which is the 9 year old African American kid from Brooklyn who gives both the bankrobbers and the police his 'shtick" without fear. Would that there were more movies that were long on story and acting, and short on gimics.
But at the end of the day there is a further profound question underlying this film. Does a lifetime of good works, make up for some hideous sin of the past or should we say 'be sure your sins will find you out'? The supposed bad guy is the one who raises the deeper questions about love and truth. Spike Lee is smart enough and respects his audience enough to not tie up all the loose ends. And several aspects of the movie can be debated. But this is the sign of a good story which scares up more rabbits than it chases down. It will take a lot for there to be a better drama than this one this year. Ron Howard and the Da Vinci Code crew has just been put on notice.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The Eternal Subordination of Christ and of Women
I am pleased to be able to provide here with permission a section of Kevin Gile's recent study of a recent theological trend that attempts to link relationships in the Godhead to relationships between men and women. What is especially odd about the argument discussed here is that it appears that theological conclusions are revised on the basis of certain anthropological conclusions about women. I would call this the tail wagging the dog, to say the least. This article is written by Dr. Kevin Giles and has appeared in the Vol. 32 No. 3 March 2006 issue of Catalyst magazine pp. 1,3-5. For more one, should consult the fine book by Giles published by InterVarsity Press in 2002 entitled The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate.
THE ETERNAL SUBORDINATION OF THE SON OF GOD AND THE PERMANENT SUBORDINATION OF WOMEN
In the later part of the twentieth century the doctrine of the Trinity captured the attention of theologians more than any other doctrine, and this interest has not waned. At no time in history, since the theologically stormy days of the fourth century, has there been so much discussion on this topic. Books on the Trinity by Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox theologians continue to be published. No longer is it thought that the Trinity is an obtuse, secondary, and impractical dogma. It is recognized today that it is nothing less than a summary of the Christian understanding of God given in revelation. The Trinity is the foundation on which all other doctrines are built. It is of immense theological and practical significance.
Contemporary discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity agree that the God revealed in Scripture is by nature trinitarian. He is one and yet three differentiated “persons” who eternally co-exist in the most intimate communion of love and self-giving. In this “model” of the Trinity the equality of the divine three, both in unity and in relation to one another as persons, is very much to the fore. For this reason any suggestion that the divine three are ordered hierarchically, or divided in being, work, or authority is rejected. T. Peters in his 1993 book, God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life, describes contemporary thinking about the Christian God as “antisubordinationist trinitarianism.” Similarly, the conservative evangelical, M. Erickson in his 1995 study, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Baker; 331), says that, along with other contemporary theologians, he believes in “the complete equality of the divine three.” David Cunningham, in his 1998 book, These Three Are One: The Practice of Trinitarian Theology (Blackwell; 112), is of much the same opinion. He speaks of “a radical, relational, co-equality” in modern trinitarian thinking. In my opinion, the finest study on the Trinity in the last ten years is that by T.F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (T&T Clark, 1996). He too emphasizes the co-equality of the differentiated, mutually indwelling, divine persons. Building in particular on the work of Athanasius, he makes the Trinity itself the monarche (sole source or origin) of the divine three and the Son the monarche of divine saving revelation. He is totally opposed to subordinationism in any form.
In the light of this powerful, contemporary stress on the co-equality of the divine persons who are understood to be bound together in the most intimate bond of love and self-giving, it is no surprise to find that some of the best contemporary expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity understand the Trinity as a charter for human liberation and emancipation (cf. L. Boff, Trinity and Society [Obis, 1988]; J. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom [Harper and Row, 1981]; C. LaCugna, God for Us [Harper, 1991]; M. Erickson, God in Three Persons [Baker Academic, 2003]). If no one divine person is before or after, greater or lesser because they are “co-equal” (as the Athanasian creed says) this suggests, we are told, that all hierarchical ordering in this world is a human construct reflecting fallen existence, not God’s ideal. God would like to see every human being valued in the same way. It is thus the Christian’s duty to oppose human philosophies and structures that oppress people, limiting their full potential as human beings made in the image and likeness of God. Erickson is one evangelical who is sympathetic to this agenda predicated on the belief that the persons of the Trinity relate as equals in self-giving love (333).
Evangelicals of Opposite Opinion
Paradoxically, in this same thirty-year period in which the co-equality of the divine persons has been powerfully reaffirmed and the implications of this teaching for our human social life recognized, many conservative evangelicals have been moving in the opposite direction. They have argued that the Trinity is ordered hierarchically, with the Father ruling over the Son. The Father is eternally “head over” the Son just as men are permanently “head over” women. In this model of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than being a charter for emancipation and human liberation, becomes a charter to oppose social change and female liberation.
This novel teaching was first enunciated by G. Knight III in his highly influential 1977 book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Baker, 1977). He argued that the God-given permanent subordination of women in role and authority in the church and the home was supported and illustrated by the Trinity. For him, the Son is eternally subordinated in role and authority to the Father, despite the fact that the Father and the Son are both fully divine. He thus spoke of a “chain of subordination” (33) in the Father-Son and the man-woman relationship, and of an eternal subordination of the Son that has “certain ontological aspects” (56).
This new teaching on the Trinity came to full fruition in 1994 with the publication of W. Grudem’s, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 1994). Two chapters in this book outline his doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son in function and authority. The impact of this book on evangelicals cannot be underestimated. Over 130,000 copies have been sold and the abridged version, Bible Doctrine (ed. J. Purswell; Zondervan, 1999), with exactly the same teaching on the Trinity and women, has sold over 35,000 copies. For Grudem the Son’s role subordination, like that of women, is not a matter of who does certain things as we might expect on seeing the word “role,” but rather a matter of who commands and who obeys. He writes, “the Father has the role of commanding, directing, and sending” and the Son has “the role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us” (Systematic Theology [Zondervan, 1995] 250) These words disclose the key issue; that is, the Son is eternally set under the authority of the Father. Grudem insists that this understanding of the Trinity is historic orthodoxy (cf. his latest book, Evangelicals, Feminism, and Biblical Truth [Multnomah, 2004] 405-43). It is, for him, what the creeds and the best of theologians have maintained throughout church history.
This hierarchical understanding of the Trinity has now almost won over the conservative evangelical community. Most evangelicals seem to believe this is what the Bible and “the tradition”—that is, the interpretive tradition—teach. However, I am also an evangelical, but I am convinced the opposite is the truth. The Bible (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13; etc.) and the interpretative tradition summed up in the creeds and Reformation confessions speaks of a co-equal Trinity where there is no hierarchical ordering.
Grudem and the many evangelicals who follow him say they are only advocating the eternal functional or role subordination of the Son, not the ontological subordination of the Son. Indeed, all Christians believe that the Son voluntarily and temporally choose to be subordinated for our salvation in the incarnation (Phil 2:4-11). The problem arises with the word “eternal.” If the Son is eternally subordinated to the Father, and cannot be otherwise, then he does not just function subordinately, he is the subordinated Son. His subordination defines his person or being. Eternal functional subordination implies by necessity ontological subordination. Blustering denials cannot avoid this fact.
The Appeal of Eternal Subordination
To understand how this doctrine—ambiguous at best, and heretical at worst—of the Trinity has emerged in the last thirty years and almost taken over the more conservative side of evangelicalism, one thing has to be recognized. The issue is not really the Trinity at all. What has generated this novel and dangerous doctrine of the Trinity is “a great cause,” the permanent subordination of women. For some evangelicals “the woman question” is the apocalyptic battle of our age. They are convinced that the Bible gives “headship” (“leadership,” in plain speak) to men. If this principle were abandoned because of cultural change the authority of the Bible would be overthrown and the door would be opened to homosexual marriages, the ordination of practicing homosexuals, and believe it or not, the obliteration of sexual differentiation. To bolster support for this “great cause” the doctrine of the Trinity has been redefined and reworded to give the weightiest theological support possible to the permanent subordination of women. Every evangelical who has written in support of the eternal subordination of the Son is committed to the permanent subordination of women in the church and the home. This agenda is what drives them to advocate the eternal subordination of the Son.
The Tail Has Wagged the Dog
Until the twentieth century Christians universally spoke of the “superiority” of men and the “inferiority” of women. After the 1970s, with the advent of “women’s lib,” Christians had to abandon this language, and, in addition, most abandoned the idea that women were subordinated to men. Conservative evangelicals, without exception, gave up this language as well, although some sought a new way to uphold male hegemony with more genteel wording. They affirmed that men and women are equals, yet God has given them different roles. This sounds fine, but when unpacked it means women have the “role” of obeying and men the role of leading; no other “role” is in mind. What is more, this “role” is permanent since God ascribes it in creation. Since God established this social hierarchical order before the Fall, it cannot be changed. It is the ideal. As this difference in “role” (in plain speak, difference in authority) is the one essential difference between men and women, to deny the permanent subordination of women is to deny male-female differentiation as such. This novel case for women’s permanent “role” subordination raises exactly the same problem as their novel case for the Son’s eternal “role” subordination. If women are permanently subordinated in role, and their subordinate role can never change, then they are the subordinated sex. They do not merely function subordinately. Their God-given subordination defines their person or being. They are the subordinated sex.
Having creatively constructed this novel theology predicated on obfuscating terminology to uphold male hegemony, these same theologians then reformulated the doctrine of the Trinity using the same terminology, thereby justifying the leadership of men. They began teaching that the Father and the Son are equally divine: the Father and the Son simply have different roles or functions. And what are these differing roles? Not surprisingly, the Father has the “role of commanding, directing, and sending” while the Son has the “role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us” (cf.Grudem, Systematic Theology, 250). Differing roles again means differing authority. The Father rules over the Son like men are to rule over the women set under them. If anyone denies that the Father and the Son are differentiated by their differing authority, then they are accused of denying divine differentiation itself—that is, of falling into the heresy of modalism. To cap off the case, the claim is then made that this teaching is historic orthodoxy. This is what Athansisus, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Calvin, Barth, and Rahner teach on the Trinity. In reply to these claims I have carefully surveyed the evidence and found that the teaching of Scripture and the interpretative tradition directly oppose these ideas (The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate [InterVarsity, 2002], and in greater detail on the Trinity, Jesus and The Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Trinity [Zondervan, forthcoming]). What we have here is simply a newly worded case for an old heresy called “subordinationism.”
What has to be noted in all this is the circular nature of this reasoning.
1. A novel theology was first devised to theologically ground the permanent subordination of women based on the argument that men and women are equal yet differentiated by their God-given, unchanging roles; and then
2. the wording and ideas used to develop this novel case for the permanent subordination of women were utilized to develop a novel doctrine of the Trinity that spoke of the Son as equal, yet eternally subordinated in role or function; and then
3. this novel doctrine of the Trinity was quoted to theologically justify and explain the permanent role subordination of women.
If this line of reasoning is correct, then this means that the doctrine of the Trinity has been reformulated in terms of fallen male-female relationships to support what was already believed: women are permanently subordinated to men. Instead of correcting sinful human thinking, the primary doctrine of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Trinity, has become a theological justification for such thinking. In the end, the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than being seen as a charter for human liberation, has become a charter for human oppression.
Thus, just as some have spoken of “Rahner’s rule, “Pannenberg’s principle,” and of “LaCugna’s corollary,” I suggest a “Giles’ guideline”: “Whenever the Trinity is construed to support some prior belief, then the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is inevitably corrupted and distorted.”
To conclude it may be helpful if I spell out the doctrine of the Trinity as I would enunciate it in the light of biblical teaching, the interpretative tradition, and the best discussions of the doctrine in recent years.
The Key Affirmations of Historic Orthodoxy
1. The God of Christian revelation is one divine being and three “persons.” Unity and divine differentiation are both absolutes. The unity of God is not to be thought of in terms of one substance, but rather, as the most intimate, most loving, and most profound triune communion. The triune God’s unity is the unique Being-in-Communion of the eternal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What ultimately underlies this divine union and communion is the mutual interpenetration (Greek: perichoresis) of the three divine persons. The divine persons, on the other hand, in their eternal and immutable distinctions as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are not to be thought of as three individuals or centers of consciousness, but rather as the one God in tri-personal existence and self-revelation, distinguished, but not divided. The Father, Son, and Spirit exist as Being-in-Relation.
2. The three divine persons are one in being. The divine three must not and cannot be differentiated on the basis of differing being. What they are in unity they are as differentiated persons. To suggest otherwise is to deny the homoousian principle, enshrined in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. This principle points to the real distinctions between the three divine persons and their absolute oneness in being. It categorically excludes the idea that any one divine person is more or less true God.
3. Inseparable in operations. Inseparability in being implies and necessitates inseparability in work/operation/function. The divine three are one in who they are and what they do. In every divine action all three divine persons work cooperatively and in harmony. They are never divided or separated in their operations. The doctrine of inseparable operations, it must be added, does not infer identical operations. It is agreed that the Father sent the Son, the Son took human flesh and died on the cross, and the Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost. These and other things are indelibly associated with one or another of the divine persons. To divide and separate the work of Father, Son, and Spirit is to undermine the unity and simplicity of the one God.
4. Indivisible in power and authority. The Father, Son, and Spirit are indivisible in power and authority. Since each divine person is fully God, each is omnipotent without any caveats. If the divine persons are one in being, equal God, they must be one in power and authority. If they are not one in power and authority they are not one in being and divinity. The Son is, then, subordinated God, not just in function but in his person. The idea that the Son must eternally obey the Father implies that the Father and the Son each have their own will. The Son must submit his will to the will of the Father. If the divine three each have their own will, then divine unity is breached and tritheism follows. To argue in reply that the Son can do no other than obey the Father—the language of compulsion is not appropriate—does not solve the problem. If the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) have one will, the actions of one cannot be conceived as obedience to another. In the NT, Christ is obedient as a human.
5. Differentiated but not divided. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not divided in being, work, or power, but they are eternally differentiated. Their distinctiveness is grounded in the tradition principally on three things, individual identity (the Father is the Father and not the Son, etc, etc), differing origination (the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds), and differing relations (the Father is the Father of the Son, the Son is the Son of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, or the Father and the Son). Differentiating the persons in these ways does not divide them. Differentiating them in being or power does divide them, leading both to subordinationism and tritheism.
6. There is order among the divine persons. The way the divine persons are revealed, how they relate to one another, and how they work, is never random or arbitrary. It is ordered. There is a pattern and consistency in the divine life that is unchanging. To argue that this order is a sub-ordering in being or power is to deny that the divine three are “co-equal” in being and power. The divine persons are ordered horizontally, not hierarchically.
7. The Son is subordinated in the incarnation. In taking human flesh the Son of God voluntarily relinquished his status, not his divinity or being as God, assuming the form of a servant. What is revealed in Jesus of Nazareth is true and provides an accurate knowledge of God, but it is a revelation of God in kenotic form, of God in human flesh, of self-subordinated God. This means what is creaturely in Christ must not be read back into the eternal or immanent Trinity.
It is my case that the Bible, implicitly, and the historically developed orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, explicitly, affirm divine unity, the eternal personal distinctions of Father, Son and Spirit, the oneness of being of the divine three, their inseparable operations, their indivisible authority, an order among them, understood as a disposition, and the temporal and voluntary subordination of the Son in the incarnation.
By Kevin Giles, author of The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (InterVarsity, 2002) and Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, forthcoming).
--------------------
I would say as a footnote to this discussion, that while I would not subscribe to every last detail of Gile's analysis of the Trinity, I quite agree with him that it is a mistake to assume that a text like 1 Cor. 11.3 is arguing that Christ is eternally subordinate to God the Father. 'Kephale' here can certainly have the sense it has when it is referring to the origins of something, for example a river. When we speak of the 'head' of a river, we mean its source, not some authority over it. Similarly, God's only begotten Son comes from God the Father. This is not a statement of his ontological or functional subordination to God the Father. As Giles points out, it is when the Son takes on a human nature that he assumes a subordinate relationship to God the Father. As Phil. 2.5-11 makes perfectly clear, the pre-existent Son of God had the condition and status of being equal to God, but he chose not to take advantage of it, but rather humbled himself (involving a choice, not an inherent condition or state of the divine Son) and took on a human nature.
If we return once more to 1 Cor. 11.3 what must be added is that whatever 'kephale' means in the relationship of Father and Son, is also what it means in the relationship of man to Christ and woman to man. In each case, 'source' is the proper rendering of 'kephale'. This quite naturally alludes to the Genesis story in which woman is literally brought forth out of man. But we might ask-- in what sense does 'man' have his source in Christ? There are two possible answers to this. In the first place Paul does affirm that Christ pre-existed and was involved in the creation of humankind from the beginning. Col. 1.16 is explicit about this, and we could compare what is said in John 1 as well. But we should also remember that Paul has a last Adam Christology applied to Jesus as well, in which Jesus is seen as comparable to the historical Adam and so the founder of a whole new race of human beings-- those who are in Christ, both men and also women. I think that the former idea rather than this latter one is alluded to in 1 Cor. 11.3.
Thus to sum up: 1) 1 Cor. 11.3 provides no justification at all for the notion that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father; 2) nor does it provide any justification for the idea that men are perpetually in authority over women. That's not what kephale means in any of these examples here in this verse.
There is one more thing to note. Male-female hierarchialism is of course grounded in certain assumptions about gender. It is a very odd thing to start with that assumption and then apply the insights to the Trinity, where no gender hierarchy could possibly be involved.
Finally, the point that Kevin Giles makes about the relationship of the Father and the Son can easily be substantiated by a few quotes from the church fathers. I have space here for one, and it is a comment made by the venerable Bede of Durham, the father credited for saving the church's great heritage of wisdom during the dark ages. This is his comment on the beautiful doxology found in Jude vss. 24-25: "This summary bestows coequal and coeternal glory and the kingdom both on the Father and the Son through all and before all ages and refutes the error of those who believe that the Son is less or later than the Father, when it says that glory, splendor, lordship, and power belong to God the Father through Jesus Christ our Lord, and this not from some beginning in time but before all ages both now and for ever. Amen."
Think on these things.
THE ETERNAL SUBORDINATION OF THE SON OF GOD AND THE PERMANENT SUBORDINATION OF WOMEN
In the later part of the twentieth century the doctrine of the Trinity captured the attention of theologians more than any other doctrine, and this interest has not waned. At no time in history, since the theologically stormy days of the fourth century, has there been so much discussion on this topic. Books on the Trinity by Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox theologians continue to be published. No longer is it thought that the Trinity is an obtuse, secondary, and impractical dogma. It is recognized today that it is nothing less than a summary of the Christian understanding of God given in revelation. The Trinity is the foundation on which all other doctrines are built. It is of immense theological and practical significance.
Contemporary discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity agree that the God revealed in Scripture is by nature trinitarian. He is one and yet three differentiated “persons” who eternally co-exist in the most intimate communion of love and self-giving. In this “model” of the Trinity the equality of the divine three, both in unity and in relation to one another as persons, is very much to the fore. For this reason any suggestion that the divine three are ordered hierarchically, or divided in being, work, or authority is rejected. T. Peters in his 1993 book, God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life, describes contemporary thinking about the Christian God as “antisubordinationist trinitarianism.” Similarly, the conservative evangelical, M. Erickson in his 1995 study, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Baker; 331), says that, along with other contemporary theologians, he believes in “the complete equality of the divine three.” David Cunningham, in his 1998 book, These Three Are One: The Practice of Trinitarian Theology (Blackwell; 112), is of much the same opinion. He speaks of “a radical, relational, co-equality” in modern trinitarian thinking. In my opinion, the finest study on the Trinity in the last ten years is that by T.F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (T&T Clark, 1996). He too emphasizes the co-equality of the differentiated, mutually indwelling, divine persons. Building in particular on the work of Athanasius, he makes the Trinity itself the monarche (sole source or origin) of the divine three and the Son the monarche of divine saving revelation. He is totally opposed to subordinationism in any form.
In the light of this powerful, contemporary stress on the co-equality of the divine persons who are understood to be bound together in the most intimate bond of love and self-giving, it is no surprise to find that some of the best contemporary expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity understand the Trinity as a charter for human liberation and emancipation (cf. L. Boff, Trinity and Society [Obis, 1988]; J. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom [Harper and Row, 1981]; C. LaCugna, God for Us [Harper, 1991]; M. Erickson, God in Three Persons [Baker Academic, 2003]). If no one divine person is before or after, greater or lesser because they are “co-equal” (as the Athanasian creed says) this suggests, we are told, that all hierarchical ordering in this world is a human construct reflecting fallen existence, not God’s ideal. God would like to see every human being valued in the same way. It is thus the Christian’s duty to oppose human philosophies and structures that oppress people, limiting their full potential as human beings made in the image and likeness of God. Erickson is one evangelical who is sympathetic to this agenda predicated on the belief that the persons of the Trinity relate as equals in self-giving love (333).
Evangelicals of Opposite Opinion
Paradoxically, in this same thirty-year period in which the co-equality of the divine persons has been powerfully reaffirmed and the implications of this teaching for our human social life recognized, many conservative evangelicals have been moving in the opposite direction. They have argued that the Trinity is ordered hierarchically, with the Father ruling over the Son. The Father is eternally “head over” the Son just as men are permanently “head over” women. In this model of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than being a charter for emancipation and human liberation, becomes a charter to oppose social change and female liberation.
This novel teaching was first enunciated by G. Knight III in his highly influential 1977 book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Baker, 1977). He argued that the God-given permanent subordination of women in role and authority in the church and the home was supported and illustrated by the Trinity. For him, the Son is eternally subordinated in role and authority to the Father, despite the fact that the Father and the Son are both fully divine. He thus spoke of a “chain of subordination” (33) in the Father-Son and the man-woman relationship, and of an eternal subordination of the Son that has “certain ontological aspects” (56).
This new teaching on the Trinity came to full fruition in 1994 with the publication of W. Grudem’s, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 1994). Two chapters in this book outline his doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son in function and authority. The impact of this book on evangelicals cannot be underestimated. Over 130,000 copies have been sold and the abridged version, Bible Doctrine (ed. J. Purswell; Zondervan, 1999), with exactly the same teaching on the Trinity and women, has sold over 35,000 copies. For Grudem the Son’s role subordination, like that of women, is not a matter of who does certain things as we might expect on seeing the word “role,” but rather a matter of who commands and who obeys. He writes, “the Father has the role of commanding, directing, and sending” and the Son has “the role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us” (Systematic Theology [Zondervan, 1995] 250) These words disclose the key issue; that is, the Son is eternally set under the authority of the Father. Grudem insists that this understanding of the Trinity is historic orthodoxy (cf. his latest book, Evangelicals, Feminism, and Biblical Truth [Multnomah, 2004] 405-43). It is, for him, what the creeds and the best of theologians have maintained throughout church history.
This hierarchical understanding of the Trinity has now almost won over the conservative evangelical community. Most evangelicals seem to believe this is what the Bible and “the tradition”—that is, the interpretive tradition—teach. However, I am also an evangelical, but I am convinced the opposite is the truth. The Bible (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13; etc.) and the interpretative tradition summed up in the creeds and Reformation confessions speaks of a co-equal Trinity where there is no hierarchical ordering.
Grudem and the many evangelicals who follow him say they are only advocating the eternal functional or role subordination of the Son, not the ontological subordination of the Son. Indeed, all Christians believe that the Son voluntarily and temporally choose to be subordinated for our salvation in the incarnation (Phil 2:4-11). The problem arises with the word “eternal.” If the Son is eternally subordinated to the Father, and cannot be otherwise, then he does not just function subordinately, he is the subordinated Son. His subordination defines his person or being. Eternal functional subordination implies by necessity ontological subordination. Blustering denials cannot avoid this fact.
The Appeal of Eternal Subordination
To understand how this doctrine—ambiguous at best, and heretical at worst—of the Trinity has emerged in the last thirty years and almost taken over the more conservative side of evangelicalism, one thing has to be recognized. The issue is not really the Trinity at all. What has generated this novel and dangerous doctrine of the Trinity is “a great cause,” the permanent subordination of women. For some evangelicals “the woman question” is the apocalyptic battle of our age. They are convinced that the Bible gives “headship” (“leadership,” in plain speak) to men. If this principle were abandoned because of cultural change the authority of the Bible would be overthrown and the door would be opened to homosexual marriages, the ordination of practicing homosexuals, and believe it or not, the obliteration of sexual differentiation. To bolster support for this “great cause” the doctrine of the Trinity has been redefined and reworded to give the weightiest theological support possible to the permanent subordination of women. Every evangelical who has written in support of the eternal subordination of the Son is committed to the permanent subordination of women in the church and the home. This agenda is what drives them to advocate the eternal subordination of the Son.
The Tail Has Wagged the Dog
Until the twentieth century Christians universally spoke of the “superiority” of men and the “inferiority” of women. After the 1970s, with the advent of “women’s lib,” Christians had to abandon this language, and, in addition, most abandoned the idea that women were subordinated to men. Conservative evangelicals, without exception, gave up this language as well, although some sought a new way to uphold male hegemony with more genteel wording. They affirmed that men and women are equals, yet God has given them different roles. This sounds fine, but when unpacked it means women have the “role” of obeying and men the role of leading; no other “role” is in mind. What is more, this “role” is permanent since God ascribes it in creation. Since God established this social hierarchical order before the Fall, it cannot be changed. It is the ideal. As this difference in “role” (in plain speak, difference in authority) is the one essential difference between men and women, to deny the permanent subordination of women is to deny male-female differentiation as such. This novel case for women’s permanent “role” subordination raises exactly the same problem as their novel case for the Son’s eternal “role” subordination. If women are permanently subordinated in role, and their subordinate role can never change, then they are the subordinated sex. They do not merely function subordinately. Their God-given subordination defines their person or being. They are the subordinated sex.
Having creatively constructed this novel theology predicated on obfuscating terminology to uphold male hegemony, these same theologians then reformulated the doctrine of the Trinity using the same terminology, thereby justifying the leadership of men. They began teaching that the Father and the Son are equally divine: the Father and the Son simply have different roles or functions. And what are these differing roles? Not surprisingly, the Father has the “role of commanding, directing, and sending” while the Son has the “role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us” (cf.Grudem, Systematic Theology, 250). Differing roles again means differing authority. The Father rules over the Son like men are to rule over the women set under them. If anyone denies that the Father and the Son are differentiated by their differing authority, then they are accused of denying divine differentiation itself—that is, of falling into the heresy of modalism. To cap off the case, the claim is then made that this teaching is historic orthodoxy. This is what Athansisus, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Calvin, Barth, and Rahner teach on the Trinity. In reply to these claims I have carefully surveyed the evidence and found that the teaching of Scripture and the interpretative tradition directly oppose these ideas (The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate [InterVarsity, 2002], and in greater detail on the Trinity, Jesus and The Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Trinity [Zondervan, forthcoming]). What we have here is simply a newly worded case for an old heresy called “subordinationism.”
What has to be noted in all this is the circular nature of this reasoning.
1. A novel theology was first devised to theologically ground the permanent subordination of women based on the argument that men and women are equal yet differentiated by their God-given, unchanging roles; and then
2. the wording and ideas used to develop this novel case for the permanent subordination of women were utilized to develop a novel doctrine of the Trinity that spoke of the Son as equal, yet eternally subordinated in role or function; and then
3. this novel doctrine of the Trinity was quoted to theologically justify and explain the permanent role subordination of women.
If this line of reasoning is correct, then this means that the doctrine of the Trinity has been reformulated in terms of fallen male-female relationships to support what was already believed: women are permanently subordinated to men. Instead of correcting sinful human thinking, the primary doctrine of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Trinity, has become a theological justification for such thinking. In the end, the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than being seen as a charter for human liberation, has become a charter for human oppression.
Thus, just as some have spoken of “Rahner’s rule, “Pannenberg’s principle,” and of “LaCugna’s corollary,” I suggest a “Giles’ guideline”: “Whenever the Trinity is construed to support some prior belief, then the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is inevitably corrupted and distorted.”
To conclude it may be helpful if I spell out the doctrine of the Trinity as I would enunciate it in the light of biblical teaching, the interpretative tradition, and the best discussions of the doctrine in recent years.
The Key Affirmations of Historic Orthodoxy
1. The God of Christian revelation is one divine being and three “persons.” Unity and divine differentiation are both absolutes. The unity of God is not to be thought of in terms of one substance, but rather, as the most intimate, most loving, and most profound triune communion. The triune God’s unity is the unique Being-in-Communion of the eternal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What ultimately underlies this divine union and communion is the mutual interpenetration (Greek: perichoresis) of the three divine persons. The divine persons, on the other hand, in their eternal and immutable distinctions as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are not to be thought of as three individuals or centers of consciousness, but rather as the one God in tri-personal existence and self-revelation, distinguished, but not divided. The Father, Son, and Spirit exist as Being-in-Relation.
2. The three divine persons are one in being. The divine three must not and cannot be differentiated on the basis of differing being. What they are in unity they are as differentiated persons. To suggest otherwise is to deny the homoousian principle, enshrined in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. This principle points to the real distinctions between the three divine persons and their absolute oneness in being. It categorically excludes the idea that any one divine person is more or less true God.
3. Inseparable in operations. Inseparability in being implies and necessitates inseparability in work/operation/function. The divine three are one in who they are and what they do. In every divine action all three divine persons work cooperatively and in harmony. They are never divided or separated in their operations. The doctrine of inseparable operations, it must be added, does not infer identical operations. It is agreed that the Father sent the Son, the Son took human flesh and died on the cross, and the Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost. These and other things are indelibly associated with one or another of the divine persons. To divide and separate the work of Father, Son, and Spirit is to undermine the unity and simplicity of the one God.
4. Indivisible in power and authority. The Father, Son, and Spirit are indivisible in power and authority. Since each divine person is fully God, each is omnipotent without any caveats. If the divine persons are one in being, equal God, they must be one in power and authority. If they are not one in power and authority they are not one in being and divinity. The Son is, then, subordinated God, not just in function but in his person. The idea that the Son must eternally obey the Father implies that the Father and the Son each have their own will. The Son must submit his will to the will of the Father. If the divine three each have their own will, then divine unity is breached and tritheism follows. To argue in reply that the Son can do no other than obey the Father—the language of compulsion is not appropriate—does not solve the problem. If the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) have one will, the actions of one cannot be conceived as obedience to another. In the NT, Christ is obedient as a human.
5. Differentiated but not divided. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not divided in being, work, or power, but they are eternally differentiated. Their distinctiveness is grounded in the tradition principally on three things, individual identity (the Father is the Father and not the Son, etc, etc), differing origination (the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds), and differing relations (the Father is the Father of the Son, the Son is the Son of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, or the Father and the Son). Differentiating the persons in these ways does not divide them. Differentiating them in being or power does divide them, leading both to subordinationism and tritheism.
6. There is order among the divine persons. The way the divine persons are revealed, how they relate to one another, and how they work, is never random or arbitrary. It is ordered. There is a pattern and consistency in the divine life that is unchanging. To argue that this order is a sub-ordering in being or power is to deny that the divine three are “co-equal” in being and power. The divine persons are ordered horizontally, not hierarchically.
7. The Son is subordinated in the incarnation. In taking human flesh the Son of God voluntarily relinquished his status, not his divinity or being as God, assuming the form of a servant. What is revealed in Jesus of Nazareth is true and provides an accurate knowledge of God, but it is a revelation of God in kenotic form, of God in human flesh, of self-subordinated God. This means what is creaturely in Christ must not be read back into the eternal or immanent Trinity.
It is my case that the Bible, implicitly, and the historically developed orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, explicitly, affirm divine unity, the eternal personal distinctions of Father, Son and Spirit, the oneness of being of the divine three, their inseparable operations, their indivisible authority, an order among them, understood as a disposition, and the temporal and voluntary subordination of the Son in the incarnation.
By Kevin Giles, author of The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (InterVarsity, 2002) and Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, forthcoming).
--------------------
I would say as a footnote to this discussion, that while I would not subscribe to every last detail of Gile's analysis of the Trinity, I quite agree with him that it is a mistake to assume that a text like 1 Cor. 11.3 is arguing that Christ is eternally subordinate to God the Father. 'Kephale' here can certainly have the sense it has when it is referring to the origins of something, for example a river. When we speak of the 'head' of a river, we mean its source, not some authority over it. Similarly, God's only begotten Son comes from God the Father. This is not a statement of his ontological or functional subordination to God the Father. As Giles points out, it is when the Son takes on a human nature that he assumes a subordinate relationship to God the Father. As Phil. 2.5-11 makes perfectly clear, the pre-existent Son of God had the condition and status of being equal to God, but he chose not to take advantage of it, but rather humbled himself (involving a choice, not an inherent condition or state of the divine Son) and took on a human nature.
If we return once more to 1 Cor. 11.3 what must be added is that whatever 'kephale' means in the relationship of Father and Son, is also what it means in the relationship of man to Christ and woman to man. In each case, 'source' is the proper rendering of 'kephale'. This quite naturally alludes to the Genesis story in which woman is literally brought forth out of man. But we might ask-- in what sense does 'man' have his source in Christ? There are two possible answers to this. In the first place Paul does affirm that Christ pre-existed and was involved in the creation of humankind from the beginning. Col. 1.16 is explicit about this, and we could compare what is said in John 1 as well. But we should also remember that Paul has a last Adam Christology applied to Jesus as well, in which Jesus is seen as comparable to the historical Adam and so the founder of a whole new race of human beings-- those who are in Christ, both men and also women. I think that the former idea rather than this latter one is alluded to in 1 Cor. 11.3.
Thus to sum up: 1) 1 Cor. 11.3 provides no justification at all for the notion that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father; 2) nor does it provide any justification for the idea that men are perpetually in authority over women. That's not what kephale means in any of these examples here in this verse.
There is one more thing to note. Male-female hierarchialism is of course grounded in certain assumptions about gender. It is a very odd thing to start with that assumption and then apply the insights to the Trinity, where no gender hierarchy could possibly be involved.
Finally, the point that Kevin Giles makes about the relationship of the Father and the Son can easily be substantiated by a few quotes from the church fathers. I have space here for one, and it is a comment made by the venerable Bede of Durham, the father credited for saving the church's great heritage of wisdom during the dark ages. This is his comment on the beautiful doxology found in Jude vss. 24-25: "This summary bestows coequal and coeternal glory and the kingdom both on the Father and the Son through all and before all ages and refutes the error of those who believe that the Son is less or later than the Father, when it says that glory, splendor, lordship, and power belong to God the Father through Jesus Christ our Lord, and this not from some beginning in time but before all ages both now and for ever. Amen."
Think on these things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)