Jesus and the Powers– A Review

April 18, 2024 By Ben Witherington

Hot off the presses (released in late March 2024) comes this book by Tom Wright and Mike Bird, boldly going where previous Evangelicals have been loathe to go— namely into politics. The book is not difficult to read, and is under 200 pages (178 to be more precise), and does a good job of teasing the mind into active thought on this subject. It is not merely a cautionary word about the problems with Christian nationalism in its various forms, the attempt to blend one’s Christian beliefs with certain forms of democratic or autocratic governments (never mind that there are no democracies mentioned in the Bible, only kingdoms of one sort or another). It is a Reformed theology critique of the issue, with a certain advocacy of secular liberal democracies as the least objectionable form of government. Not surprisingly, the book is zooming up the Amazon charts in this election season in America, and elsewhere. When I asked Mike who wrote what, he replied. “Tom wrote the chapter on the powers, an earlier chapter reworks his stuff from other projects. I wrote the intro and the final three chapters, but even then Tom had a heavy hand in commenting and shaping the contents. So it’s very much a joint effort.”

So what do I think of this book and its advocacy of Christians ‘building for the kingdom’ a phrase that pops up a great deal in this book (see e.g. p. 89)? The first thing to say is that it is odd that there is not a clear definition to be found in the book of what is meant by ‘kingdom’/basileia. In a following blog post I address this issue with Mike in our dialogue about the book. I found this problematic on several counts, not the least of which is that when that Greek word is used to refer to something in the ministry of Jesus or Paul it regularly has a verbal sense, referring to God’s saving activity in Christ, or the results of such saving activity (love, joy, peace patience etc.) but what it does not refer to is a Christian’s view of government, including secular governments. And when it refers to something in the future ‘coming on earth as it is in heaven’ it refers to a dominion of God in Christ on earth that believers can enter, inherit, obtain… or miss out on if they do not behave. Again, it does not refer to a Christian’s view of a non-divine process, or outcome. It doesn’t tell us how to relate to the secular ‘powers that be’.

Of more direct relevance to the subject of this book is the brief discussion of Rom. 13 of how all authority and power ultimately comes from God, and so governing authorities should be respected, and taxes should be paid (see also 1 Pet. 3).

There is also something of a discussion of the powers and principalities that are not human governments, and I was not fully satisfied with that either. The powers of darkness are not merely forces (may the force be with you), they are malevolent beings in the case of Satan and his demons, or benevolent ones if we are referring to angels. They are part of the created order, and so can indeed be called creatures, beings God made. On this I’d say, read Mike Heiser’s (may he rest in peace) The Unseen Realm.

There were also issues related to how exactly God’s sovereignty should be viewed, or more to the point granted that God is almighty, how exactly does he exercise his power and authority? Does he ever delegate some power and authority to angels and humans? Do they have the power of contrary choice, such that they could choose to to violate God’s will, and sin? These questions are necessary to ask because if we deny that the last sentence speaks to the reality of things, if the reality is that God has pre-determined all things, or at least all sorts of things and persons in advance and we admit there is wickedness and evil, even supernatural evil in the world, how does one avoid making God the author of evil and sin? My answer would be with a theology that allows for viable secondary choices, and the human and angelic ability, by God’s grace, to have the power of contrary choices. Humans and angels are the source of sin and evil in the world— and definitely not God. So again, the sovereignty of God needs to be defined carefully and how it works before one makes broad statements about God raising up and bringing down rulers. For example, did God really raise up Adolph Hitler, a man who had power and authority and ruled with an iron hand, to judge the Jews before and during WWII? My answer to that would be HELL NO! But I digress. I would agree that all legitimate power and authority comes from God.

Jesus’ dominion is not ‘of this world’ meaning not like human dominions and notice that Jesus absolutely repudiates the idea of his disciples fighting for his kingdom, like merely human kings and their subjects to. The rejection of violence comes up not only in the discussion in John 18 with Pilate but it also is perfectly evident in Jesus’ ‘those who live by the sword, die by the sword’. and Jesus’ rebuke of Peter for cutting off Malchus’ ear, which he miraculously reattached. Jesus committed his disciples to absolute non-violence when it comes to his dominion (see p. 71). If only the Crusaders had actually paid attention to Jesus on this matter. Tertullian was later to say ‘when Christ disarmed Peter, he disarmed all Christians’. Yes there were many early Christians who felt they should not join the Roman army, and for that matter should not do violence against another human being for whom Christ died. It is good to see that Tom and Mike see Col. 3.12-17 as an example of Paul implementing the teaching of the Sermon on the Mt. (pp.67-68).

Here are a few of the more interesting lines from the book:

“God.. raises up kings and empires [and] directs the affairs of government through divine providence [and] gives us government as a feature of common grace.” (p. 151). But in what sense, and to what degree does God direct the affairs of government through his providence? For instance, did God direct the British Bible Makers, authorized by the King, to produce a Slave Bible for its slave-holding colonies which deleted all the passages that suggested that there was a strong critique of slavery in both the OT and NT, and highlighted all the passages which could be seen as favoring slavery? No, no, no.

Here’s an interesting critique of Christian nationalism: “Christian nationalism is impoverished as it seeks a kingdom without a cross. It pursues a victory without mercy. It acclaims God’s love of power rather than the power of God’s love. We must remember that Jesus refused those who wanted ‘to make him a king’ by force just as much as he refused to become king by calling upon ‘twelve legions of angels'” (p. 136).

Or even better “Christianity is a global religion, not the religious expression of an ethnic identity. The church includes Romans but not all Romans. The church includes Slavs but not all Slavs”. (p. 135.). Unfortunately, Christian nationalism, whether in its American or Hungarian or Russian forms involves a specific denial of Gal. 3.28 and an affirmation of an ethnic identity that the group wants sanctioned and supported by government at the expense of other ethnicities, other religions etc.

“The logical implication of religious freedom for Christians is religious freedom for all people irrespective of their religion or lack thereof.” (p.132).

Here it is worth quoting the word of God himself in Hosea 8.4 “They made kings but not through me…” This clearly implies that as John Wycliffe insisted, not all authority, not all government is something that God raised up, and Christians must be discerning as to which authorities and governments one should submit too as legitimate. (see the discussion on pp. 114-15). Prov. 8.15-16 comes into play at this juncture where God says “By me kings reign, and rulers declare what is just. By me rulers rule… all who govern rightly.” Notice the provisos in each case. Notice it does not say ‘By me kings do wickedness, or govern unjustly.’

One of the odder remarks can be found on p. 60 where Tom, talking about the structures of governance says “As with everything else in God’s creation, once they stop being worshipped they stop being demonic”. Now I would take this cryptic remark to mean that Tom does not think the ‘principalities and powers are actually beings, but just fallen structures that are valorized as if they were. I don’t agree. Walter Wink was wrong about this. And what would it mean to say the powers are defeated and then reconciled if they are not beings? (Col. 2.13-15). However on p. 52 he refers to the demons mentioned in 1 Cor. 10 as “malevolent discarnate beings bent on corrupting and distorting human life and work– eager to recruit humans to their deadly pursuits.” (p.52). On the previous page he calls them. supernatural quasi-personal forces which stand behind human rulers.

Early on there is a discussion based on Ps. 8 that God always intended humans to rule on earth as God’s surrogates (pp. 42ff.). What is not discussed is the early theocracy and the rejection of theocracy in 1 Samuel, with which God was not at all pleased. This is odd.

Check out the dialogue and the reflection on sovereignty that follows this blog post seriatim.

What’s the Significance of the Seal in the NT?

March 23, 2024 By Ben Witherington

We are all by now familiar with the famous reference in Ephesians 1.13-14 about the Holy Spirit and the seal which reads: “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴who is a pledge/earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” The Greek word ‘arrabon’ does not mean ‘guarantee’. The King James quite rightly renders it as ‘an earnest’ something given in advance as a sort of promissory note of something to be given later, all being well. Or the NASB rendering is good here— ‘a pledge’. Interestingly, in modern Greek the term is used for an engagement ring! In other words, it refers to something that foreshadows something big later, a foretaste of glory divine but not the whole thing. The same applies to ‘arrabona’ in 2 Cor. 1.22 and 2 Cor. 5.5, and again in both cases the reference is to the Holy Spirit as this ‘pledge’. There are no other references to this word in the NT. But let us focus on the reference to a seal– not mind you to a sealing, a verbal idea, but to a seal (a noun idea).

Surely everyone in antiquity knew about seals— seals on amphoras, seals on documents and so on.

The seal on an amphora not only indicated who it was doing the sealing, but it protected the wine from contamination,just like shrink wrapping does today on bottles of pills. But such seals could be and were broken.

So everyone knew that such a seal could be compromised, could be broken open. Now bearing in mind that it is the person of the Holy Spirit who is said to be this seal this pledge of future good, we need to ask the question raised in the NT repeatedly– is it possible to so grieve or grieve the Holy Spirit or blaspheme the Holy Spirit that one nullifies the pledge or earnest? And the answer surely is yes.

This is exactly what Hebrews 6 for instance, indicates. Hebrews 6.5-6 it will be remembered says the following: ” It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.” What is being described here is apostasy– a willful rejection of the work that God has already done in a person’s life. Notice the reference to ‘having shared in the Holy Spirit, and then having rejected all those benefits that one already had.

Sometimes, Reformed exegetes have tried to suggest that the verb ‘taste’ in this context doesn’t mean that someone had actually had initial salvation by grace through faith, but had simply encountered such a thing without the initial transformation we would describe as conversion. This however is nonsense. The very same verb ‘taste’ is applied to Christ himself ‘tasting’ death in Hebrews 2.9 where we hear that Christ tasted death for everyone, which doesn’t mean he merely encountered it, it means HE ACTUALLY DIED. Similarly, tasted in Hebrews 6 means having actually experienced the powers of the age to come and the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and yet went on to deliberately and willfully reject all that through an act of mental and moral apostasy. In short, the author of Hebrews is saying ‘you are not eternally secure until you are securely in eternity’ and Paul himself would not have disagreed with this. Consider his discussion of the deeds of the flesh which he warns born again Christians against committing because if they persist in doing such things, they will not inherit the kingdom or enter the realm of final salvation. Paul in the Pastorals talks sadly about Christians who had made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim. 1.19-20) and who were handed over to Satan. As John Wesley once said— you can’t make shipwreck of a faith you never had, and Paul is clearly enough talking about the genuine Christian faith they have wrecked.

In short, the reference to the Holy Spirit as the seal, and as the pledge or earnest, reminds us that salvation is not finished until one goes through all three stages of ‘I have been saved (justification and the new birth), I am being saved (the process of sanctification), and I shall be saved (full conformity to the image of Christ even in the flesh at the resurrection). The presence of the Spirit in a Christians life is a pledge that more is coming and needs to happen, but it is not a guarantee that apostasy cannot happen (which is why in Revelation 22.18-19 we hear the warning to the seven churches that their names could be erased from the Lamb’s book of life).

One more thing about a seal— it protects something from an outside danger. This is why we have promises like that in Rom. 8 that no external power or force, or principality or angels or demons or circumstances in life can separate us from the love of God in Christ. That is a great assurance. But notice the one thing not in the list of things that can separate you from God is YOURSELF, hence the textual warning in various places about apostasy. Again apostasy is not about ‘losing one’s salvation’ it is about deliberately willfully rejecting the work of God in your life. Apostasy doesn’t happen by accident or when you are sleeping, as Hebrews 6 makes perfectly clear. No one can steal your salvation, no circumstance can cause you to lose it. No temptation that comes to you cannot be resisted and escaped from (see 1 Cor. 10), if one draws on the power of God already resident in your life. This is what assurance is about, but what it is not about is some sort of guarantee that no matter what you do after conversion you are once saved and always saved. That is not a NT idea.

Structure and Discipline in the NT

March 15, 2024 By Ben Witherington

This morning (in the heresy and schism lecture) we stressed variety–even Jesus, Paul, John express themselves differently. But are they saying the same thing? Just as soon a theology developments, differences appear, and the question becomes what is legitimate and what is not. But on the main issue the NT is clear— there are those being saved, and those being destroyed (1 Cor. 1; 2 Cor. 2). External pressure meant that only the serious joined, the rest were outside. But outside what? The word implies structure, organizing– see Mk. 4.11ff– ‘those outside’. What did response to the Gospel mean? Joining the church, but what was the church? There were theological and phenominological aspects which ought to be related to each other.

The church is the medium of partially realized eschatology, between the two advents of Jesus, more specifically between the resurrection of Jesus and his return– parousia. The church’s existence bears witness that Jesus is Lord and to the resurrection. If it ceases to bear this witness, it ceases to exist, whatever structure it may retain. Of course this is a matter of gradation. Others have different ways of sharing this witness– charismatic, sacramental, ethical. This takes us from theology to phenomenology.

What in NT times did this church look like? How was it organized? We shall have to talk about ministry, but this is not necessary. Our earliest pictures hardly need ministers. Mt. 18– deal with your brother privately, or with 2 or 3, or take it to the church. Thus either you gain your brother, or he goes out. 1 Cor. 5 is nearly the same. The church must meet but Paul carries weight. The result is the same-exclusion. cf. church meetings in 1 Cor. 14. The general rule is prophet one sits down when prophet two stands up. Some different groups must be tolerant of each other but must not exclude each other (Rom. 14). Where ministers exist they tend to focus these activities and the visibility of the church, but add no new principles. They were inevitable. There was pressure of religious and spiritual maturity. There were issue of age and social presentability. The NT is concerned to check rather than to add.

But any organization can by appropriate measures of discipline by exclusion. Where in the NT does this happen? How is it done? For what reasons? Paul presents a varied picture of discipline and tolerance. It is particularly important to analyze this. 1 Cor. 16.22f. If anyone does love the Lord, let them be anathema.. But in Gal. 1.8-9 he anathematizes those who preach ‘another’ Gospel. cf. 2 Cor. 11.3-4. See especially 1 Cor. including the list in 6.9-11. The incestuous man must be thrown out. One should appointed to act as judge. What happens if the marriage rules are transgressed? “Eidolothuton– ‘you can’t drink from the cup of demons and the cup of the Lord’. What does cannot mean? Note obedience regarding 16.15f.

Appeal– Paul appeals to his own apostolic authority and to universal Christian praxis. In 2 Cor. and Gal. Paul is helpless, he can only ask for obedience.

Acts 5– Ananias and Sapphira- here we see radical discipline. Acts 9, unwillingness to accept Paul. Acts 11, Peter rebuked, mission to the Gentiles. Acts 15– how is the matter settled– by rules. Acts 20 grievous rules in the future.

John– the world, Diotrephes 1 Jn. 4.1; 3 Jn. 9-10

Hebrews- second repentance (Luther)– 10.26; 12.17; 6.4-8.

1 Pet. 4-5

Pastorals– exclusion of the recalcitrant.

Mk. 10– the strange exorcist, and rules for rulers.

What can we collect and deduce here– very little. At first the main criterion seems to be personal loyalty. Perhaps loyalty is measured by behavior, belief but this grows into keeping the rules and accepting the doctrines. This on the personal level or with collective discipline raises the question of schism which in turn leads to ‘early Catholicism’. Was there a special mixture of constituents in the NT? [but note the presence of the ‘idiotes’ in the prophecy time of worship in 1 Cor. 14. Non-believers were invited to the meetings apparently which one would expect with an evangelistic religion. BW3] Eventually when doctrine becomes dogma and there is ministry, discipline, sacraments and rules for taking it, there is pressure for uniformity. Schism arises out of a break of the uniformity.

Kasemann asks does the NT provide for the unity of the church? Certainly not for its uniformity for we observed different ministerial structures. When does a Christian body engage in schism over against another part of the body? When must a member be excluded? When they deny the Lord who saved them? And what is contained in this denial? And how is rule to be applied?

Ken Jenning’s 100 Places to See After You Die

March 6, 2024 By Ben Witherington

Here is the description on Amazon for this 300 or so page book which came out in 2023…..

“From Ken Jennings comes a hilarious travel guide to the afterlife, exploring to die for destinations from literature, mythology, and pop culture.

Ever wonder which circles of Dante’s Inferno have the nicest accommodations? Where’s the best place to grab a bite to eat in the ancient Egyptian underworld? How does one dress like a local in the heavenly palace of Hinduism’s Lord Vishnu, or avoid the flesh-eating river serpents in the Klingon afterlife? What hidden treasures can be found off the beaten path in Hades, Valhalla, or TV’s The Good Place? Find answers to all those questions and more about the world(s) to come in this eternally entertaining book from Ken Jennings.

Written in the style of iconic bestselling travel guides, Jennings wryly outlines journeys through the afterlife, as dreamed up over 5,000 years of human history by our greatest prophets, poets, mystics, artists, and TV showrunners. This comprehensive index of 100 different afterlife destinations was meticulously researched from sources ranging from the Epic of Gilgamesh to modern-day pop songs, video games, and Simpsons episodes. Get ready for whatever post-mortal destiny awaits you, whether it’s an astral plane, a Hieronymus Bosch hellscape, or the baseball diamond from Field of Dreams.”

This book is indeed a cornucopia of unearthly delights and disasters, and one of the first questions it raised for me is– What should we make of this book written by a practicing Mormon who has gone on a Mormon mission, in particular what should we make of its tone— sometimes snarky, sometimes satirical, sometimes comical, sometimes almost flippant? Mormons of course, famously don’t believe in Hell or a genuinely negative afterlife. As Ken says the worse outcome envisioned by Mormons is to end up in the bargain basement telestial kingdom. Nevertheless, that’s still a positive outcome of sorts. And what is especially odd about that particular afterlife theology is that the vast majority of afterlife theologies, from myth, religion folklore, science fiction and elsewhere do indeed have a very vivid depiction of the negative afterlife– call it Hell or something else. Remember that two of the great classics of Christian literature, Dante’s Divine Comedy, or Milton’s Paradise Lost, were criticized for having too vivid and interesting depictions of Hell, and rather boring depictions of heaven. Or consider the painting of Hieronymous Bosch, particularly The Garden of Earthly Delights and the Last Judgment or for that matter Michangelo’s Sistine Chapel back wall last judgment…..

Certainly, one thing that this book does demonstrate is that the belief in some kind of life after death is world wide, and involves almost all imaginable religions, mythologies, literature etc. And just as certainly, this should tell us something not just about human nature and its longing for a positive eternity, but also something about human fears about what happens after one dies. Ecclesiastes 3.11 is worth quoting here “God has set eternity in the human heart, without the possibility that humankind will be able to figure out the work God has done from the beginning to the end.” Yes indeed. I would say this is part of being created in God’s image, and yet as fallen creatures, we have had an infinite capacity to let our imaginations run riot, depicting the afterlife in all sorts of bizarre and distorted ways, as well as a few true ways too. It is striking that actually the Bible doesn’t spend much time describing heaven and hell, although the book of Revelation provides some visual and visionary pictures of things. And what the NT, as well as portions of the OT indicates is that a believer’s final destiny is not somewhere in another parallel universe, a heaven or hell, but rather the final destiny is right here on earth recreated or renewed when God comes to dwell with human beings in our own native habitat. This is both what the end of Daniel and Isaiah and the end of Revelation say clearly, and what various of the sayings of Jesus point to as well.

Ken Jennings then has done a rather good tour guide of human thinking about that other realm, but in the end, it does not describe the final frontier for Biblical believers who take seriously the final positive resurrection and its sequel without equal (cf. Dan. 12.1ff. as well).

CKB on The Call to Preach

March 4, 2024 By Ben Witherington

A lecture given in Hexham in 1985. In general these lectures seem to almost all come from the period shortly after Kingsley retired from his University post at the University of Durham in the Theology Department in 1982.

Explaining the call to preach has turned out to be more difficult than I thought. To illustrate the difficulty, two proposition: 1) Faculties– do not preach unless you have to; 2) at Cambridge, what you must ask is whether you have a call NOT to preach. This assumes we are Christians and a few other things also. Let us see where the problem lies.

I see no problem in the Damascus Road kind of experience . Recall it from Acts 9,22,26. And it can still happen. There is no problem here, but there is K. Stendahl’s question– is this a conversion or a call? In fact the question is wrongly put. All conversions are calls. And this puts us a step further. All conversions are in a sense a call to preach, that is to bear witness. The non-witnessing Christian is a self-contradiction. See Rom. 10. On this we shall all agree, and also that witnessing can take many forms. This is the presupposition of it all. But you do not want me to confine myself to this– ‘coming to the Methodist preaching plan’, taking services, preaching sermons.

Here we have to turn aside to ask what preaching actually is. It is related to, but not identical with: 1) the common Christian obligation to witness; 2) the making of public speeches, lectures. We should approach the truth by saying it is a) interpersonal, but b) we need to go further. How is witness expressed with speech. Again a question arises– what are we witnessing to? An immediate answer is– a conviction of mine, something that has happened to me. This suggests a third thing preaching is related to but is not— projection of the self. Cf. the use of reader’s services. Good but not preaching. (see Wesley’s sermons).

More important we witness to the objective and universal fact that God has redeemed the world by sending his Son. This is apprehended subjectively and individually. What God did is confirmed in Scripture, and therefore preaching is based in Scripture. Thus preaching presents the substantial empirical content of the Christian faith, explains it, applies it, makes it acceptable. This is done in different contexts, hence evangelistic preaching and instructive preaching.

With this we come to the question of call. We began from a traditional Methodist formula. Gifts–natural endowment physical and mental. But nearly everything you can say needs to be hedged with qualifications. Voice– but think of Maltby! Accent. Intelligence– the Bible is in Hebrew and Greek! But how many fine preachers have neither, but they do have exceptional study and understanding of Scripture. Clarity of thought is important. Grace— supernatural endowment. The basic thing is that the preacher’s life must not contradict the message, not too flagrantly anyway. No one is as good as the message. There is also the Spirit of convincing speech, which is more than clarity, logic, and sincerity.

Fruit– Non-Methodists sometimes say this is unfair. There is a chicken and egg element. But our traditional (forgotten?) ways make it possible–class, open air, exhorting, nite. Do we in these days take fruit seriously enough? These are external checks. This is right for me; I have something to say—

If the conviction is genuine, the response will be apparent. Getting ready to preach involves hard work (Scripture, theology, ethics). it involves faithfulness, acceptance of opportunities, little and large. It involves the use of helps, e.g. preacher’s groups, books etc.

This leads to further questions– In times of dearth or decline can we encourage call? by 1) Prayer, 2) demonstrating this is a high calling and therefore there is no place for laziness, inadequate preparation, carelessness, failure to talk about reality will put young people off. 3) providing opportunities for beginners, for example in bands.

How is a sense of call maintained? 1) continuing to pray, think, read, fellowship with others; 2) learning the techniques; 3) avoiding mere habit.

The B+B Festival Part One

October 5, 2023 By Ben Witherington

Of the larger music festivals in America, the Bourbon and Beyond Festival has over the last several years emerged as the very best. Last year 140,000 came to this festival, and I doubt it was less this year, which features not only classic rock, but all sorts of recent rock artists, country artists old and new, bluegrass artists, and crossover artists like Billy Strings, Blues artists like Buddy Guy, some Hip Hop artists, some r+b artists, some wild cards (this year it was 81 year old Wayne Newton– believe it or not). The festival in fact has a mission of giving visibility to all the different bourbon distilleries in Kentucky, which seem to multiplying like rabbits in the last decade. The end result is big bucks spent on headlining artists, and all sorts of merch sellers, and of course food— all sorts of food, with celebrity chefs showing up and doing demonstrations. This festival is one stop shopping for a lot of different things.

This year the headliners included Bruno Mars, Jon Batiste, and Blondie, as well as Baby Face, Hozier, Duran Duran, Train, the Black Keys, the Black Crowes, Brandi Carlile, the Killers, Bastille, Brittany Howard of Alabama Shakes, the Avett Brothers, and many up and coming artists like Maggie Rose, or The Inhalers which is a band fronted by the son of Bono (yes another band from Dublin led by a Hewson). One of the charms of this festival is getting to hear some excellent up and coming artists, as well as your favorite headliners. The festival last four days barring atrocious weather since it is housed at an outdoor venue— the Festival Grounds near the Convention Center and Freedom Hall. Unfortunately, three years ago the Festival became Mudstock due to lots of rain and the final day of the festival was cancelled, which meant we didn’t get to see Sting and other headliners— bummer dude. Here and in the next post you get to see some of the performers. But first of all, some candidate shots of me and my sister at the T Mobile pavilion, and kudos to those people— a nice pavilion sheltered from the sun, free patches and popsicles, comfy seats to watch the shows, and various T Mobile deals… which I already took advantage of some years ago and again this year with my phone upgrade to a 23 Ultra+. Basically it’s a world class camera that is also a computer and phone as well.

And here’s a shot of the ever growing crowd and we got closer and closer to headliner time in the evening.

If you are wondering about the food there was good BBQ, but my favorite was New England Lobster rolls, and lobster bisque— yum. There was also all sorts of fast food, and junk food, not to mention gelato and ice cream and fruit flavored popsicles. The food below, showed up in front of me…. but fortunately it was for someone else because besides being a caloric disaster, I can’t eat hot jalapenos.

Dialogue with Father James Martin– Part Nine

September 25, 2023 By Ben Witherington

Q. This Gospel is the only one with a purpose statement in John 20— ‘these things are written so that you might begin to believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God’. I don’t think it’s an accident that this is the Gospel usually first translated by missionaries into a new language. This is the Gospel for evangelism, not as a tract to be handed out, but as a tool for teachers and preachers bearing witness and leading people to Christ. Would you agree? If that is so, does this enhance the importance of the story of the raising of Lazarus (and of Jesus)?

A. Yes, and in fact, in John the miracles are “signs” not “works of power” as in the Synoptics. What Jesus does throughout John’s Gospel is intended to invite people to believe, or perhaps to force the question: Do you or do you not believe? Jesus’s raising of Lazarus was many things: a response to the heartfelt request of his friends Martha and Mary, a gift to the man called “he whom you loved” and a demonstration of the intimate relationship between Jesus and the Father (as evidenced by the prayer in front of the tomb). But above all it is a sign meant to help people “come to believe.”

Today I would imagine most people who read (or hear) this story already believe in Jesus. So the questions today may be, Do you believe that God can offer you new life? Do you believe God can free you from whatever keeps you bound? Do you believe God can call you to ‘come forth’?”

Lynn Cohick’s Ephesians commentary

July 25, 2023 By Ben Witherington

Lynn Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 520 pages.

So I decided to do something I’ve never done before in the last 50 years of studying the Greek New Testament. I read right through a major commentary skipping nothing. It turned out to be very worthwhile. In fact, it was rather like writing such a commentary, which I have done on Ephesians (see my The Letters to Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians, 2007). Lynn Cohick’s commentary covers a lot of ground, and interacts with a large body of literature, and no commentary can be expected to deal with everything. But surprisingly missing apart very brief mentions in the Introduction and late in the commentary when one gets to the peroration at 6.10-20, is any interaction to speak of with the reading of Ephesians as a rhetorical discourse within an epistolary framework— which is, in fact, what Ephesians is. The latter was long ago recognized not only many of the Greek Church Fathers such at John Chrysostom, and Latin fathers like Augustine, and also the Reformers, but also by many of the recent treatments of Ephesians by very fine scholars such as Roy Jeal and Andrew Lincoln. This oversight, or neglect, whichever it is, is strange, because it would have strengthened this commentary considerably when it tries to make a good case for the Pauline authorship of this letter (which it does do).

Those who know the history of rhetoric know that all the way back to the time of Aristotle, and even before there were handbooks, guides to the art of persuasion. These ancient cultures were primarily oral cultures, not cultures of texts, not least because the literacy rate in the Greco-Roman world was at most about 20%. And in any case, all kinds of texts, including letters were read out loud to audiences, and they had oral and aural features by design. So far as the historical evidence goes, there were no letter writing handbooks before or during Paul’s time. In fact, letter writing was treated as a rhetorical exercise, as part of the progymnasmata, elementary education focusing on and featuring the art of rhetoric. When Theon in the first century A.D. began to teach letter writing to his students who were studying the progymnasmata he told them— ‘compose these fictional letters as a rhetorical exercise and in the form of what is called prosopopoiia’ (see Peter Lampe’s essay in Paul and Rhetoric ed. J.P. Sampley, 2010). Furthermore, classics scholars have shown that even brief letters by a Pliny, or a Seneca reflect the structure— proposition, an objection, an argument, and a peroratio, (see Pliny’s Ep. 1.11 and 2.6 and the 13^th-15^th Epistula morales of Seneca).

Had attention been paid to the rhetorical interpretation of Ephesians, it could have been pointed out that Paul has deliberately chosen the Asiatic style of Greek rhetoric, with its long sentences, and many repetitions of key terms in this letter because this letter is written to an audience, wait for it— in the province of Asia, where such a style of Greek speaking and writing originated and was popular. The change in style does not reflect a change in authorship, it reflects a change in audience from say 1 Corinthians, or Romans, or Philippians or 1 Thessalonians. Paul is versatile in his use of Greek, like many ancient orators and writers. (see now the 2nd edition of the textbook I’ve done with Jason Myers, NT Rhetoric, with a bibliography which lists hundred of rhetorical studies done in the last 25 years, as well as detailed Appendices on ancient education and the Progymnasmata).

Since George Kennedy revived the study of reading the NT in light of ancient rhetoric while he was teaching at my alma mater (UNC in the 1970s, the very man who taught me Greek in the first place), it has been increasingly recognized that one neglects the rhetorical reading of various parts of the NT at one’s peril. For instance, the considerable body of work by scholars like Kennedy or Hans Dieter Betz or Margaret Mitchell or J. Paul Sampley or many other have demonstrated this again and again. The bibliography in the 2nd edition of my volume New Testament Rhetoric, done with Jason Myers shows that there are now hundreds of articles and monographs written in the last 25 years that recognize and draw on rhetorical analysis of the NT, and especially Paul’s letters.

The reason Paul sends this document with an epistolary prescript and postscript, is because he is far from the audience, indeed he is confined to his current location probably in Rome, and so the discourse he would have delivered orally in the province of Asia had he been there, had to be written down and sent off as a letter, for Tychicus or someone else to read out loud to the audience, or more likely audiences (because Ephesians appears to be a general circular letter probably written at the same time as Colossians).

It would have further helped this commentary if it had been recognized that we are dealing with the rhetoric of the present, epideictic rhetoric, the rhetoric of praise and blame, a sermon of sorts which focuses on what unites the body of Christ, and Christ with his body, what unites Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female in Christ, indeed what unites the whole cosmos, both in heaven and on earth, namely the person and salvific work of God, Father, Son, and Spirit.

And what an eloquent sermon it is, not offering arguments but rather prayers, and praises, and encouragements and both theological and ethical food and support for the tiny Christian communities in Asia struggling to survive in a polytheistic and antagonistic culture where not just human opposition but the powers of darkness are at work. In such an environment, Christians need to put on the full armor of Christ just to stand and withstand the war that is being waged against the truth and against them by multiple sorts of opposition. But I have dwelt on this major lacuna in this commentary too long. Now, I want to turn around and tell you some of the good things about this commentary, which in numerous respects deserves high praise.

In the first place, this commentary provides us with a excellent, detailed grammatical and historical study of the Greek of Ephesians, and it is written in good clear English that any pastor, or teacher, or Bible study leader can understand and learn from. Lynn is very fair, and very thorough in her exegesis and treatment of the such matters. There are also first rate Excursi in the commentary that give more detailed treatment of key subjects, especially difficult ones like the treatment of slavery and slaves in the household codes. More on this in a moment. There is also a very good treatment of the theological and ethical substance of this discourse, although I could have wished for much more interaction with Markus Barth’s fine treatment of the issue of what Paul means by the phrase ‘in Christ’ and how it is Christ himself who was destined in advance before the foundation of the universe to be the fallen world’s savior. Believers are only elect or saved in Him, our representative, because we did not exist before the foundation of the universe to be predestined. Salvation is by grace and through faith in Christ, the destined one. Salvation does not transpire by individuals’ fates or destinies being pre-determined by God before they even exist. What is true is what Romans 8 says is true— for those who love God and are called according to purpose/choice, God has destined those who are Christians to ultimately be conformed to the image of Christ by means of sanctification now and resurrection when Christ returns. The future is as bright as the promises of God for those who are in Christ by grace and through faith.

Lynn brings to this commentary various detailed studies about the role of women in the ancient world, but also about the social history of parents, children, slaves, as well as clear knowledge about ancient economies and how all of this comes into play in the household codes and elsewhere in Ephesians. There are helpful discussions about unique phrases like ‘the heavenlies’, or what Paul means by ‘the middle wall of partition’. There is a very fine discussion near the end about soldier’s armor, and the analogies Paul is drawing on in Ephes. 6 in his peroration about how Christians can protect themselves by deliberately drawing on the truth, on their faith, on the their own previous experience of salvation in a hostile environment. The discussion in Ephesians 6 is about standing and withstanding the onslaught. It is not about going on the offensive through a deliverance ministry against ole Lucifer and his gang of thugs.

But the most helpful detailed discussion in the whole volume is on wives, children, slaves, and how Paul is changing the paradigm within the Christian household by calling for mutual submission between all Christians including husbands and wives, by treating children and slaves as moral agents and persons of worth in their own right who can respond to ethical imperatives. Paul is by no means baptizing the hierarchial status quo in the ancient extended family and calling it good. To the contrary he is changing the way Christians should look at those family relationships. But of course he has to start where his audience actually is, de facto, and then put the leaven of Gospel change into the already existing relationships of Christians in order to deconstruct the fallen domination structures that exist at every level of ancient society, even within families.

There are of course places where one could have wanted Lynn to say more about difficult concepts, for example about what in the world Paul means about ‘families in heaven’ or about believers already being seated in the heavenlies with Christ. And where exactly are the prince of the power of the air and dark forces in the heavenly realm located? Hopefully not in Paradise, or as Paul calls it in 2^nd Corinthians—the third heaven. It is the measure of a good commentary that it teases the mind into active thought, and this commentary certainly does that in a helpful way from start to finish. This commentary definitely belongs on your shelf with other good Ephesians commentaries.

One more thing. Why in the world does this commentary have a cover image of Mary being confronted by an angel, from the Gospel annunciation story on it? This makes no sense at all.

William Campbell’s Romans– The Dialogue Part Twenty

June 20, 2023 By Ben Witherington

Q. You argue that Christ as the telos of the Law in 10.4 means that Christ is the goal and completion of the Law for Gentiles in Christ. This is not Paul’s view. Paul believes the coming of Christ has inaugurated the eschatological and messianic age for Jew and Gentile alike and so the Gospel about this is for everyone. Christ is the goal, fulfillment completion of the law for anyone, but only if they are in Christ. Paul sees his own keeping of the Law as a blessed option, largely done for missionary purposes so, being the Jew to the Jew’ he may win some for Christ. And I imagine he would say that for Jews outside of Christ there is benefits to continue keeping the Mosaic Law. In fact, I suspect he would say that since God has plans for them to encounter Christ when he returns and all Israel will be saved, there is no need to insist or pressure all Jews to become followers of Christ in his own day. Christ will fix the problem later. This more than accounts for Paul’s positive assessment of the Law as holy, just and good, and also of statements that Jews have a proper zeal for God, like, he did before his conversion but it is not ‘a zeal according to knowledge about God’s plan for salvation of Jew and Gentile alike in Christ. Why is this a wrong analysis of Paul’s views?

A. When Paul speaks of Christ as the goal of the Law we must remember that in Romans he says this to gentiles. So to presume that this also said to Jews does not seem to be in the text. Gentiles need to know that the goal of the Law is Christ, meaning that the Law guides, or points gentiles to Christ, hence the later Christological readings of the Old Testament by Christians. This does not mean that it is not relevant anymore, should be not be followed anymore or seen to be in opposition to Christ. The meaning of fulfilment as having thereby come to end is rather strange, because when e.g. you fulfil a contract, this contract is established and confirmed not given up. This is the sense of telos here in my view. This becomes evident e.g. in Rom 13. 8-10 where Paul affirms the he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled every requirement of the Law (this is a very Jewish perception).

What do we envisage of Paul’s missionary activities ? He addresses the world of the gentiles where in most areas Jews would be a tiny minority if present at all. So if we think of Paul as an evangelist as well as a teacher then most of the time he is working amongst non-Jews. Of course Jews living in the diaspora had to adjust their way of life, that is, Torah observance to the circumstances in which they lived. This has nothing to do with a relativization of the Torah, or living according to it merely as a blessed option. Torah observance as the Jewish way of life is the essential expression of Jewish identity. To argue that this is an adiaphoron in Christ expects Jews to give up their identity. This is precisely what Paul argues against as this would mean that God is the God of some universal amalgam of undifferentiated gentiles. But Paul is adamant that God is the God of Israel AND the nations, and he takes both in their respective abiding identities seriously. To do otherwise would be to obliterate the one identity at the expense of the other. This is where some Christians are wrong to consider that they can only magnify Christ by minimizing connections with Jews and Jewish identity as if Christ were only the saviour of gentiles. Here SIT comes into play which demonstrates that any superordinate identity that negates the relevance of diverse sub-group identities risks intensifying tensions and strife between divergent groups.

Q. On p. 375 you suggest that the diatribe reflects Paul’s teaching style, to draw the disciple into conscious reflection on things. You add: “His letters and Romans in particular, are not documents dictated in brief pauses on his travels, but more likely reflect patterns not unique to the letters themselves but reflective of Paul’s teaching in the wider context.” I totally agree and this is why you can’t treat Romans apart from examining his thought in other capital Pauline letters, perhaps especially the ones written before Romans— 1 and 2 Thess. 1 and 2 Cor. and Galatians. And it is that wider context of Pauline thought that makes your reading of Romans problematic it seems to me. How would you respond?

A. I think that you are looking for something like the essence or an overview of Paul’s thought which I don’t think is available in the NT itself but only when the separate messages of the various letters in their differing contexts are put together in some meaningful relation/collection. I don’t necessarily oppose such a project, but think that the prior task to ascertain the individual messages is the more significant. Co-ordinating Paul’s differing perspectives across the letters is a difficult task which demands careful methodology across quite a large body of material. We also need to be careful that we keep to the NT focus on the letters as targeted to differing contexts, and not attempt to give a systematic expression of Paul’s thought which the apostle himself did not attempt, not even in Romans. I think that viewing Paul as a teacher may make us more aware of what the letters have in common but also draw attention to the specific new things he introduces at several points, e.g. in Romans he speaks for the first time of being buried with Christ, of the Law as being holy and the commandment as just and good, and of Israel’s unpersuadedness of the inauguration of messianic time. So one of the tasks requiring elaboration here would be the relative significance of items which Paul mentions only once, in contrast to those which are repeated in several contexts. Paul rightly does not speak of things that are not an issue for those people he is addressing in a particular letter. The letters are fragments of ongoing conversations between Paul and his communities, but in the case of Romans the letter is actually the initiation such a conversation. But we do not have the whole conversation, meaning not only that we only have the voice of Paul, but that we also do not know what preceded this written fragment of the conversation. There is perhaps a parallel with the four gospels. The church rightly rejected the attempts to harmonize these into one gospel as they were aware of and respected the differing emphases in each. Similarly, there is no one harmonized outline of Paul’s letters in the NT, thus letting them speak in their own particular voice, as I think Paul had intended them. The NT writings resemble a choral symphony rather than a monologue. This is why I try to hear the particular distinct tune in Romans while being aware of the many other important things Paul said elsewhere.