dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos

Sin of usury

2009-09-05T19:29:00.001-05:00

The Bible prohibits usury and although the passages supported in support of this injunction (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:35-38; Deut. 23:19-23) appear to be only applicable for loans by Jewish lenders to Jewish borrowers, the Church said they apply to all loans citing Lk. 6:30 et al. Martin Luther in two separate treatises condemned usury in no uncertain terms.

What is usury? The Biblical injunction is against the payment of interest for any loan. Luther agreed although his strongest condemnations were reserved for those who charged excessive interest and excessive was probably interest in excess of six percent interest.

In legal terms, usury was initially charging interest in excess of the rate allowed by law. Today in many jurisdictions, usury is charging and collecting interest in excess of the contract rate. Regardless of how we define usury, usury is still a sin defined as charging any interest on a loan. Using this biblical definition of usury, the sin is widespread and deserving condemnation particularly in light of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and the effects of the meltdown on banking and financial institutions and upon individuals.

For numerous reasons, usury is no longer a sin in the eyes of most individuals. No one has suggested that the words of scripture have not been properly translated. Even those who base their theology on Sola Scriptura have not said that usury is still a sin.

A work in progress.

Like a cat on a hot tin roof

2009-09-04T08:46:00.001-05:00

The reading for the last Sunday in August included these verses from the 7th chapter of Mark: “And he said, ‘What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.’”

It is not surprising that a Lutheran clergy said to me that she felt like a cat on a hot tin roof. What an appropriate allusion to the play written by Tennessee Williams. It is also a comment on the recent decision of the ELCA to allow gay clergy in committed relationships to be called as a minister of a congregation of the ELCA!

Paraphrasing John Henry Newman, the Lutheran doctrine of Sola Scriptura led inevitably to the liberalism which denied the authority of 1 Cor. 6:9. With the rejection of Sola Scriptura, the days of the ELCA are probably numbered.

Theology has changed to meet new circumstances, something that St. Luke recognized, even it those who made the change do not recognize it.

We will be sitting in the same pew this Sunday wondering if we are still Lutherans.

Copyrighted 2009 All rights reserved

Religion
Christianity
Gospel of Luke

Church in Turmoil

2009-08-28T06:48:00.000-05:00

Although we may not recognize it, the Church has been in turmoil for over 2000 years.

It seems that every generation has to deal with the Church in turmoil and the faithful dissenters who emerge to voice their opinion or more often to vote with their feet. Some churches handle dissent better than others. We all recognize dissent and do not need any help defining turmoil although we might not agree that the church is in turmoil because of the expressed sins of its members. My problem with this definition is that we are all sinners and therefore by definition the church is always in turmoil.

The more difficult question is posed by the faithful dissenters. Robert McClory wrote about 17 faithful Catholic dissenters and now Roger Launius has published his book about 18 Mormon dissenters. We should expect the next book to be about 19 Episcopalian dissenters.

What constitute a faithful dissenter? More importantly, what is an eucharistic community?

Were the followers of Jesus faithful dissenters? Are faithful dissenters followers of Jesus?

Too many questions!

Who Mentioned Chappaquiddick First?

2009-08-27T08:27:00.000-05:00

My parents were in Sweden visiting relatives when one of the visitors invited to meet the Americans said in Swedish, ask the the Americans about Chappaquiddick. My father responded in perfect Swedish that the visitor should be more concerned by the King of Sweden who had recently been stopped by the police for a DUI. My parents told me there was absolute silence in the room because it was considered bad manners to attempt to place the King in a bad light.

When I visited my relatives in New England one year after Chappaquiddick they took me to that place on a thirty foot sailboat to test the currents.

It is unfortunate that Chappaquiddick is mentioned; but that is human nature. The obituary always includes that event that is for most people the memorable event they wished had been forgotten. Senator Edward Kennedy should be remembered for his legacy and accomplishments without the footnote. We should all hope that the supreme judge does not remember our Chappaquiddicks.

Copyrighted 2009 All rights reserved

Does theology change to meet social need?

2009-08-22T15:48:00.000-05:00

On September 15, 1851, George Fox wrote a letter to “My Friend” wherein he stated in part:

“Instead of taking my writings for a guide, they should be considered as helps marks for encouragement, and never for a moment as laws to govern others. No written code, however, it may be adapted, will be wholly suited to the time and circumstances for which it was designed, will be wholly suited as an ultimate christian standard--his must be a life ever on the watch, ready to examine whatever draws his attention, and if selfishness is sufficiently subdued, and prepossessions banished from the mind, then with an honest purpose of heart, independent of books or men, a judgment will be formed that will elevate and prepare the mind for advancement while in the body, and will necessarily introduce to a happy eternity.”

This letter has been cited as an example of “Quaker Theology in Transition.” The Church of the Latter Day Saints and the Society of Friends are the only religious groups in Christianity that recognize that theology does change. Since this letter is a response to the actions of the ELCA in voting to allow congregations to extend a pastoral call to a gay or lesbian member of the clergy, I suppose I am allowed to ask the question, do Lutherans recognize that theology does change to meet social need?

copyrighted 2009

Rank Speculation and Circularity

2009-08-17T05:50:00.001-05:00

I suppose that I should place the title in quotation marks.

I am very much interested in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. I suspect that you are also.

There are several undisputed facts. With one exception the high priests named in the New Testament are members of the Family of Ananus. Bauckham said: “It is noteworthy that in every known case action against the Jerusalem church or its leaders was taken when the reigning high priest was one of those who belonged to the powerful Sadducean family of Annas (Ananus).”

Ananus served as High Priest from 6 to 15 CE and five of his sons and one famous son-in-law, beginning with Eleazar served over the next fifty years: Eleazar, 16-17 CE, Ant. 18:34; Caiaphas, 18-37 CE, 18:35, 95; Jonathan, 3 or 5 months in 37 CE, Ant. 18:195, 123; Theophilus, 37-41 CE, Ant. 18:123; Matthias, Ant. 19:316, 342; and Ananus, short time in 62 CE, Ant. 20:223. A grandson served as the next to the last High Priest: Matthias, son of Theophilus, 65-67, Ant. 20:223.

Nelson had stated that “Precisely because priests were seen as custodians of the faith, the issue of unfaithful and disobedient priests became a recurring literary theme: . . . .” Nelson was discussing the prophetic literature of the Old Testament.

In the parable, the rich man “was clothed in purple and linen.” William Barclay said: “That is the description of the robes of the High Priests, . . . .” Although Barclay provides no citations, Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews states: “and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing.” These citations are ultimately based upon Exodus 28 where we find the instructions given to Aaron for making the high priest's garments; "blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and fine linen" (Exodus 28:5-8,15,31,39). I concede purple was also the clothing of royalty.

Nickelsburg and Grensted have noted the parallelism between Luke 16 and 1 Enoch while others have noted the parallels with the deuteronomic injunctions against oppressive treatment of the poor in Israel. Not unlike Jesus' warning, 1 Enoch 103:5-8 delivers a stinging indictment of Sadducees with 'ill-gotten wealth' who live extravagantly only to descend to Sheol. These observations not only confirm the very Jewish nature of the parable but also confirm that the parable is directed against the Sadducees.

Andre Lacocque initially proposed that “the vision in Chapter 7 has the Temple as its framework” and that the “one like a son of man” refers to the eschatological high priest. Fletcher-Louis further develops the idea by first demonstrating that “Daniel 7 is ultimately Temple centred” and that the missing link to the understanding of Daniel 7 is the fact that “one like a son of man” and Enoch are both priests citing Suter, Nickelsburg, Kvanvig and Hemmelfarb.

Luke’s use of the term “the Righteous One” in Acts 3:13-15; 7:51-53 and 22:14-15 is probably based upon 1 Enoch 38 since in all of these passages “the Righteous One” is the eschatological agent of God. Richard Hays states: “The term appears in these passages in direct association with apocalyptic motifs of resurrection and judgment and it also highlights the awful injustice of Jesus’ death.

In the story about the Transfiguration, Matthew and Mark have replaced “my Chosen” with “my Beloved.” Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him." The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch contains numerous descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them."

With this background with its Enochic connection, it is my contention that the reading audience of the first century, without specifying the first audience, would have recognized that one or more of the Lucan parables are about priests and that this parable has a High Priest as one of its characters. Furthermore the reading audience would have recognized that the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus has a message about resurrection and judgment.

Is it rank speculation and circularity to identify the person in the parable wearing purple as a High Priest and member of the Family of Ananus? The identification of Caiaphas as the High Priest is a common type of biblical exegesis which I understand to be is arriving at “a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage.”

I happen to think that the person dressed in purple is Eleazar, son of Ananus, not Caiaphas. I suppose if two or more persons could be identified as the man in purple, this may be proof of rank speculation.

Today

2009-08-16T14:53:00.000-05:00

We went for a walk in the park. Because we had inadvertently crossed the state line, we had to pay $6.00 to enter the park as a non-resident. It reminds me of the Marcan U-turn and the Conzelmann zigzag described in the gospel accounts. Perhaps Jesus and his disciples were avoiding the toll collectors.

We will return to the state park because unlike many public places, this park is so private that you can walk a considerable distance without seeing anyone. It reminds me of sections of the Appalachian Trial, I mean Trail. I suspect you know where my mind is!

Copyrighted 2009

Magnetism in the Marketplace

2009-07-19T12:05:00.001-05:00

The gospel reading for today tells us that the crowds are attracted to Jesus. But I have been reading too many numbers. These economic numbers are probably more disturbing than we have been told. It is almost as the bad news is being spoon feed to us because we are unable to handle it all at once.

First the numbers. Unemployment is at a comfortable 10% level but why do they say unemployment is comfortable. Yesterday, the NY Times reported “construction was started on more new homes in June than any month since November.” This unexpected 3.6% increase is considered to be a sign that the economy is improving yet mortgage foreclosures are also increasing and the recent 1 point increase in mortgage interest rate is not good. It cuts the purchasing power of a borrower by about 10%.

Second the derivatives. When that too big to fail insurance company was in the bread line we were told that swap contract problem had 5 year life and at the end of 5 years the crisis will past. It now appears that the 5 year number only applied to a class of corporate contracts and that there are several other larger categories of derivative contracts with even longer windows.

Did I tell you, church attendance has increased?

The Mystery of Jesus Revealed

2009-06-10T18:56:00.001-05:00

Josephus was also aware that because of the corruption of the priesthood[i] many believed that in the future an ideal faithful priest would reign. This belief was based in part upon the prophecy contained in 1 Samuel 2:35, where God promises to bring Eli’s “house” down and raise up a faithful priest, for whom he will build a “sure house” (2.35).[ii] Josephus rewrote this prophecy to state that “the sons of Eli shall die on one day, and the priesthood shall be transferred into the family of Eleazar.”[iii]

Did Josephus obscure the reference to the High Priest he identified as “Jesus, son of Sie” because he knew “Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man” was born during the high priesthood of Jesus, son of Sie?

Jesus was born approximately 4 BCE – 6 CE, the exact date is not important, only the time frame is, when Jesus, son of Sie, was serving as High Priest. The first hint that Jesus is the new eschatological HP is his name which is given to him, not in accordance with Jewish custom but given to him, by the Archangel Gabriel, during the period of time when Jesus, son of Sie, is serving as the HP. It is unlikely that Luke knew the name of the High Priest or attached any significance. Most Excellent Theophilus knew.

At the age of twelve, Jesus is in the Temple answering the questions of the elders. Luke states: “all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers (Lk 2:47).” One can say with absolute certainty that the news of this most unusual teaching session reached the ears of the man serving as the High Priest at that time. His name was Ananus and he served as High Priest from 6-15 CE.

Luke 2:40 and 2:52 act as bookends for this pericope: “And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.” “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” These statements are reminiscent of 1 Samuel 2.21; 2.26; 3.19: “And the boy Samuel grew in the presence of the Lord.” “Now the boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Lord and with men.” “And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.”

Lee Dahn has suggested that these bookend statements in Luke 2 and “The numerous metaphorical references to ‘house’ in Jesus’ teaching likewise find commonality with the story of 1 Samuel 2-3, where God promises to bring Eli’s ‘house’ down and raise up a faithful priest, for whom he will build a “sure house” (2.35). Dahn has further suggested that Luke by his Jesus in the Temple story at the age of twelve, with its allusion to 1 Sam. 2-3, has introduced as a background literary theme “the issue of the unfaithful and disobedient priests.”

As noted earlier, the account of Josephus for this time period is not clear. Josephus may have created the confusion in his account so that no one would suggest that Jesus was born in the time period when Jesus, son of Sie, was serving as the High Priest.[iv] However Mason was not confused. He stated that Jesus, son of Sie served as High Priest until AD 6 citing Ant 17.341.[v]

It is obvious that Josephus deliberately obscured the records because a word search for “Jesus” in Josephus reveals two entries in close proximity both of which are mentioned in this article: one about the appointment of Jesus, son of Sie, as High Priest and the second about Jesus, a wise man. By the time Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews, he is aware that the followers of Jesus have proclaimed Jesus to be that “ideal faithful priest.”

This two part article is a work in progress. Additional footnotes need to be created.

[i]  See for examples the following material which was well known to Josephus: T. Mos. 10:1 (where the existing priesthood is corrupt - 5:4; 6:1-3, cf. 7:3); Qumran community (for whom the Jerusalem priesthood is corrupt and the true priesthood is already in place (lQSb, 4Q400-405)); the so-called Fourth Philosophy (that is led, in part, by the Pharisaic priest Zadok as an alternative for the nation's priesthood over against the high priest of Roman choice, Joazar son of Boethus (Josephus Ant. 182-4)).
 

[ii] Luke considered the echo in his gospel of this prophecy to be important: see Acts 3:22-26.
 

[iii] Ant. 5.10.4.
 

[iv]  Ant. 17.13.1 to Ant. 18.1.1.
 

[v] Josephus and the NT, 127.

The Mystery about Jesus

2009-06-05T14:39:00.002-05:00

In Ant. 18.3.3 we read “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.” This mention appears after the mention of the ensigns of the army which Pilate attempted to introduce into Jerusalem and the construction of a new water tunnel with sacred money. Numerous scholars have commented on the authenticity of this Jesus passage. In agreement with Gary Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke", The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995) pp. 59-77, I consider the passage essentially authentic.

Earlier in Ant 17.13.1 we read

“1. WHEN Archelaus was entered on his ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of assisting the seditious, and took away the high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar his brother in his place. He also magnificently rebuilt the royal palace that had been at Jericho, and he diverted half the water with which the village of Neara used to be watered, and drew off that water into the plain, to water those palm trees which he had there planted: he also built a village, and put his own name upon it, and called it Archelais. Moreover, he transgressed the law of our fathers and married Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, who had been the wife of his brother Alexander, which Alexander had three children by her, while it was a thing detestable among the Jews to marry the brother's wife. Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living.

2. But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government”

The death, funeral and the testament of Herod the Great is recorded in Ant 17.8. This passage, in Ant 17.13.1, is about one of his sons, Archelaus who was appointed by Augustus as ruler of Judea. His appointment as ethnarch included the power to appoint and remove the high priest. His first act was to remove Joazar and appoint Eleazar in his place. Then Josephus says: “Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living.” I have not checked but this phrase “being put in his room while he was still living” appears to be unique. At this point in time, Joazar, the previous High Priest, is still alive. The next sentence notes Archelaus served ten years and then the principal men of Judea and Samaria filed charges against him in Rome.

There is no further mention of Jesus, son of Sie, in Antiquities. It seems strange that Josephus would omit this information about the removal or death of Jesus, son of Sie. Josephus was very careful in his recitation of the names of the high priests, their appointments and their removals.

In the next book, Josephus says in Ant 18.2.1: “WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest;"

Thus Josephus notes Joazar was twice removed but only once appointed. Josephus recognizes the problem and states that Joazar had “the dignity [of the priesthood] conferred on him by the multitude.” But this addition does not solve the problem of no mention of the death or removal of Jesus, son of Sie.

Joazar is first mentioned by Josephus in this passage (Ant 17.6.4):

“But the people, on account of Herod's barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel and to inflict punishment on them, said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done. But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead. Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.”

There is no question that Joazar is a prominent high priest as he mentioned again after his removal in Ant 18.1.1 in these words:

“1. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it.”[i]

Joazar is twice removed as high priest by Josephus. Why? I suggest that the clue is Jesus, son of Sie, whose appointment is noted by not his death or removal. Josephus, who is a member of a high priestly family and proud of his genealogy and the accuracy of the genealogy records of the members of the priesthood, has deliberately obscured the reference to Jesus, son of Sie. Josephus knows the significant of the name of Jesus. He also knows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a descendent of Joseph, the son of Ellemus, who served as High Priest for a single day (see Siverton). I suggest that Josephus, who believed in the veracity of Daniel 7-12 and considered Daniel to be one of the greatest of the prophets, was also aware that “the son of man” phrase which appears 108 times in the OT; twice in the Book of Daniel, 29 times in the Gospel of Luke and not at all in the writings of Josephus, is an allusion to a person who is the eschatological high priest.

This is a work in progress. (emphasis in bold added).

Copyrighted 2009

[i] Since Josephus called Jonathan, and other individuals, a High Priest even after their removal, his practice with respect Joazar (in Ant 18.1.1) is not unusual.

Prophets of the Hill Country

2009-05-18T05:40:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking again about ὀρεινός , a Lucan hapax. In particular I thought that perhaps “hill country” was a signal for us to examine the prophets associated with the hill country such as Jeremiah, Amos and Micah.

Jeremiah was born in Anathoth, a small levitical town less than three miles N of Jerusalem, but situated in the hill country of Benjamin. Micah was from a town called Moresheth in the hill country of Judah, twenty-two miles SW of Jerusalem. Before Amos began prophesying, he had been one of the shepherds of Tekoa, a town in the hill country of Judah, about five miles SE of Bethlehem and ten miles S of Jerusalem.

A number of reasons can be advanced in support of this proposal. Both Micah and Jesus made predictions about Jerusalem and wept for Jerusalem. Amos, Jeremiah and Micah employed covenant lawsuits. Paul’s account of his commissioning is modeled on “a mosaic of citations” from the prophets about their respective callings including Jeremiah. This proposal, like my earlier proposal that Luke is alluding to Hebron, needs further work. Zechariah as the last “righteous” priest of a levitical place of refuge in Hebron setting free its refugees on the death of the high priest and Jesus as the new High Priest is still a good idea.

While thinking about the prophets, I decided to review the Book of Zechariah and “behold” the Greek word for hill country – Luke uses ὀρεινός and Zechariah uses ὀρεινὴ at the beginning of a prominent and promising passage. The Greek word appears in numerous Biblical passages but not in Jeremiah, Amos or Micah and in most, perhaps every, instance except one military activity is being described. However in Zachariah 7:7 ὀρεινὴ appears in a passage that introduces, not military activity, nor a messianic prophecy but nonetheless coincidently contains a descriptive passage that reminds me of the message of the gospel. It is a very subtle allusion.

At the end of the day, I must conclude it is very possible that Luke intended multiple allusions or none at all with his use of ὀρεινός , a Lucan hapax.

A work in progress

Copyrighted 2009

Hidden Polemics of Divorce

2009-05-14T15:47:00.000-05:00

William James said “We carve out order by leaving the disorderly parts out.” This is certainly true of divorce. I have wondered if this also happened during the writing of some of our gospel accounts.

Some cynics have suggested that the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes asked difficult questions of Jesus hoping that He would like John the Baptist give a rash answer that would cost him his head. I have not engaged in this speculation. But I have felt that “hidden polemics” might help us understand the divorce dispute that is sandwiched between the stories of the dishonest steward and the rich man and Lazarus.

In the Lucan account, no one has asked a question about divorce. Why then does the Lucan Jesus include the following harsh words about divorce as part of his response to the Pharisees?

Lk 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this (the Parable of the Unjust Steward), and they scoffed at him.

Lk 16:15 But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Lk 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.

Lk 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.

Lk 16:18 "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

This controversy periscope is immediately followed by the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. I had previously proposed that the divorce saying is between two stories about the high priest. In fact the entire Gospel of Luke addresses sacerdotal concerns.

The Lucan Jesus is not commenting on the divorces of the members of Herod families. He is commenting on the prevalence of divorces among the people in his audience.

According to Yairah Amit, “A polemic is said to be hidden when its subject is not stated explicitly or when it is not stated in the usual or expected manner or wording.”

The divorce saying is an example of hidden polemics.

This is a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008

Different Views of Luther’s Atonement Thinking

2009-05-04T06:57:00.000-05:00

By way of introduction, Joseph Lortz has observed: “Martin Luther expressed very few views to which we do not find parallels in earlier theologians and reformers. None the less, Luther is something new – an original phenomenon of creative quality and power.”

Ian Siggins holds while motifs from all the historic atonement theories are present in Luther’s thought, there is no ‘nucleus’ in his atonement thought.

H.D. McDonald states the penal substitution is dominant while Gustaf Aulen states Christus Victor is dominant. Althaus sees a combination of the classical and Latin concepts but leans more to the later.

Consequently I suspect Tuomo Mannermaa is correct when he writes: “Luther unites, then the Latin and Classic theories of reconciliation. In his theology, Christ’s expiatory work as such is at the same time victory over the Powers.”

This is a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2009

The Word of God in Song

2009-04-28T06:53:00.001-05:00

Educators have known for a long time that music can be a valuable learning resource especially when one needs to memorize something. Furthermore, singing songs adds elements of participatory involvement. Luther encouraged the involvement and participation of the congregation in worship by having the congregation participate through the singing of the liturgy and hymns. It was also his conviction that the hymns sung should teach and proclaim the faith.

As noted the importance of music to Martin Luther can not be underestimated. Luther taught that through Christ we have been given direct access to God, just like a priest; thus the doctrine is called the priesthood of all believers. Because of this understanding of the priesthood of all believers, he prepared and preached a series of catechism sermons.

To insure that the theology of the hymns reflected the faith of the church and that the word and music properly proclaimed the gospel, Luther composed several catechism hymns to be sung during the service. For Luther, the Catechism has a liturgical function because it provides focus to Christian doctrine in prayer and praise. Luther also encouraged his musically talented friends to compose appropriate hymns.

Luther began to compose hymns in 1523. His first hymn was Dear Christians, One and All, Rejoice. His first congregational hymnbook was published in 1524. In the preface, Luther indicated that hymns and psalms should be sung “so that God’s Word and Christian teaching might be instilled and implanted in many ways.” Luther composed six catechism hymns, one for each of the six parts of the Small Catechism. Four of these were actually composed before he wrote the Small Catechism and two appeared after the publication of the Small Catechism. Some of his hymns were composed specifically for liturgical use. In place of the recital of the creed, one could sing We All Believe in One True God.

Luther strongly believed that the catechism has a liturgical function because it provides focus to Christian doctrine in prayer and praise. “For Luther worship was a corporate activity, an expression of the unity of the community of faith, a reality that was uniquely demonstrated in the song of the whole congregation.”[i]

[i] Robin A. Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, Principles and Implications (2007), 199.

The leper as a model

2009-04-26T19:35:00.000-05:00

“Once again the example of love is prefigured in Christ with the leper. For here, you see how love makes him a servant, so that he helps the poor man freely and for nothing, seeks neither pleasure, favor nor honor thereby, but only the good of the poor man and the honor of God the father. For which reason he also forbids him to tell anyone, so that it be absolutely pure work of free kindly love.” Martin Luther

In the news, some one contributed 70 million dollars to a small group of colleges and universities. As a condition of the gift, the donor required the recipient to agree in writing not to attempt to ascertain the identity of the donor.

I am shocked. The donor wanted nothing in return. The donor should have also required that each of the recipients agree not to publicize the gift so that no one else, such a journalist, would attempt to ascertain the identity of the mysterious donor.

Dear Christians, One and All, Rejoice

2009-04-25T13:15:00.001-05:00

1. Dear Christians, one and all, rejoice,

With exultation springing,

And, with united heart and voice,

And holy rapture singing,

Proclaim the wonders God hath done,

How His right arm the victory won;

Right dearly it hath cost him.

2. Fast bound in Satan's chains I lay.

Death brooded darkly o'er me.

Sin was my torment night and day.

In sin my mother bore me.

Yea, deep and deeper still I fell.

Life had become a living hell,

So firmly sin possessed me.

3. My own good works availed me naught,

No merit they attaining.

Free will against God's judgment fought,

Dead to all good remaining.

My fears increased till sheer despair

Left naught but death to be my share.

The pains of hell I suffered.

4. But God beheld my wretched state

Before the world's foundation.

And, mindful of His mercies great,

He planned my soul's salvation.

A father's heart He turned to me,

Sought my redemption fervently.

He gave His dearest Treasure.

5. He spoke to His beloved Son:

'Tis time to have compassion.

Then go, bright Jewel of My crown,

And bring to man salvation;

From sin and sorrow set him free.

Slay bitter death for him that he

May live with Thee forever.

6. This Son obeyed His Father's will,

Was born of virgin mother.

And God's good pleasure to fulfil,

He came to be my Brother.

No garb of pomp or power He wore,

A servant's form, like mine, He bore,

To lead the devil captive.

7. To me He spake: Hold fast to Me,

I am thy Rock and Castle;

Thy ransom I Myself will be,

For thee I strive and wrestle;

For I am with thess, I am thine,

And evermore thou shalt be mine.

The foe shall not divide us.

8. The foe shall shed my precious blood,

Me of My life bereaving.

All this I suffer for thy good

Be steadfast and believing.

Life shall from death the victory win.

My innocence shall bear thy sin;

So art thou blest forever.

9. Now to My Father I depart,

The Holy Spirit sending

And heavenly wisdom to impart

My help to thee extending.

He shall in trouble comfort thee,

Teach thee to know and follow Me,

And in all truth shall guide thee.

10. What I have done and taught, teach thou,

My ways forsake thou never.

So shall My kingdom flourish now

And God be praised forever.

Take heed lest men with base alloy

The heavenly treasure should destroy.

This counsel I bequeath thee.

Written in 1523, this was Martin Luther's First Hymn, Richard Massie, translator.
Text transcribed From The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, 277-8.

A work in progress.

Music drives away the Devil

2009-04-21T09:59:00.000-05:00

Martin Luther had intended to prepare a treatise on music but the only evidence discovered of his intentions was an outline he prepared setting forth five points. The title of this piece was point 3 on the outline. About the same time that he prepared this outline, he wrote the following to a composer friend:

“For we know that music, too, is odious and unbearable to the demons. Indeed I plainly judge, and do not hesitate to affirm, that except for theology there is no art that could be put to the same level with music, since except for theology [music] alone produces what otherwise only theology can do, namely a calm and joyful disposition. Manifest proof [of this is the fact] that the devil, the creator of saddening cares and disquieting worries, take flight at the sound of music almost as he takes flight at the word of theology.”

The importance of music to Martin Luther can not be underestimated. It permeates his thinking and influences his theology. Therefore it is necessary to consider the implications of “the sound of music” in analyzing whether or not Luther has adopted the victory motif as asserted by Gustaf Aulen.

What I am reading

2009-04-20T06:40:00.000-05:00

I have decided to go off the reservation and actually read a few books about Martin Luther. I am very interested in ascertaining whether or not Gustaf Aulen is correct in his assertions about Martin Luther’s use of the victory theme.

What is so unusual about my selections is that I am reading about the devil, drama, dualism, music, symbols and the suffering of God. I decided with so many new books published on Martin Luther every year, I need to “take the road less traveled” and approach the subject from a different angle.

Victory of Christ

2009-04-06T06:38:00.000-05:00

When we properly understand the victory of Christ over Satan, death, sin and all evil powers, we recognize that the criticism of Gustaf Aulén’s Christus Victor (1931) is unfounded. Aulén is criticized for not fully explaining the victory and for not providing an explanation of the benefits that the victory provided the average twentieth century man on the street.

Albert Schweitzer, with his detailed discussion of the belief of Judaism in a period of tribulation before the final age, explained the victory as eliminating the need for believers to experience the tribulation prior to entering the kingdom of God. In Aulén’s words, “The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” Thus for Aulén, victory over all powers includes, inter alia, the victory described by Schweitzer and Luther over the tribulation.

The second criticism ignores these words written by Aulén in his discussion of Athanasius: “The work of Christ is the overcoming of death and sin; strictly, it is a victory over death because it is a victory over sin. And, further, the note of triumph which rings through this Greek theology depends not only on the victory of Christ over death accomplished once for all, but also on the fact that His victory is the starting-point for His present work in the world of men, where He, through His Spirit, ever triumphantly continues to break down sin’s power and ‘deifies’ men.”

Schweitzer recognized that the need for repentance and its related requirements are very important to Jesus. In fact, the Lord’s Prayer in the Petition that says “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” seems to place emphasis on this so much that Schweitzer said “Even if the Servant passages suggest it, Jesus cannot regard his death as a sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sins. His view of the unconditional forgiveness that comes from God’s compassion precludes it.”

This petition of the Lord's Prayer is a demanding one. Not only do we ask God's forgiveness for our daily offenses, but we link God's forgiveness of us with our forgiveness of others. Forgiving others is not always easy to do. We need God's help to do it. But it must be done or we ourselves cannot receive God's mercy. There is no indication according to Schweitzer that Jesus changed this.

Thus it is clear that Aulén, as does Schweitzer, recognizes “that His victory is the starting point for His present work” which is on-going. The victory for Aulén is only a motif; it is not a theory or doctrine of atonement. It is the arrival of the ministry of Jesus, which is continued by the apostles, which brings salvation. Neglecting the continuing need “to break down sin’s power” trivializes the significance of the victory, the on-going ministry and the contribution of Gustaf Aulén.

The existence of evil spiritual beings and the defeat of Satan are presented to all people with blemishes as integral parts of the gospel message of the victory of Christ in death and resurrection over all enemies.

This is a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2009

Exclusion Rules in Qumran and the Response of the Lucan Jesus

2009-03-24T08:57:00.003-05:00

Jesus shared a world view that spiritual beings existed which can interact with human beings. The evil spiritual beings do harm to human beings and also lead them into disobedience to God. Jesus accepted the belief in the existence of disobedient evil spiritual beings that were under the control of Satan. Jesus believed that this control will end at the time of eschatological salvation.

Judaism believed in the eschatological idea of a period of tribulation which would occur before the arrival of the messiah. Birth pangs and labor pains signal destruction in sight with new beginnings promised from the ruins of that destruction. According to the War Scroll the final age was to be preceded by a period of tribulation or “birth pangs [of the Messiah]” (1QH 3:7-10), which “shall be a time of salvation for the People of God ...” (1QM 1)(B.C.E.). (See also Matt. 24:8; Mk. 13:8).

This view is expressed by Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14 in these words: “When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Ico'nium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” Paul, as indicated in the above quotation and in 1 Th. 5:3, Matthew and Mark all believed that “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” represented by the birth-pangs of a new beginning. In Schweitzer's view, believers will enter the kingdom of God without experiencing the tribulation, because Jesus by dying on the cross spared his followers from having to suffer the tribulation. Only Luke recognized this victory.

The Qumran sectarian writings anticipate this eschatological defeat and destruction. However, the community believed it was necessary in the interim period to enforce strict exclusionary rules. These evil spiritual beings were believed to be the root cause of illness and physical disability and deformity. Judaism believed that those persons who have committed sins become susceptible to evil spiritual beings.

The expanded exclusion lists compiled by the community of unacceptable blemishes, including but not limited to the blind, lame, dumb, simple minded, the possessed, the alien, mamzer, proselyte and eunuch can be found in the Damascus Document, the Rules of the Congregation and the War Scroll. These lists are based upon Leviticus 21:17-23 which enumerates physical defects that make persons ineligible to serve in the Temple. The Qumran community using “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests” from Exodus 19:6 constituted itself to be a kingdom of priests. The community believed that the exclusion rules provided a kind of protection and combat against evil spiritual beings.

The Lucan Jesus came healing people with blemishes and preaching the good news that proclaimed everyone who repented could be included in the community of the believers and followers of Jesus. In Acts, Peter and Philip demonstrate that the good news includes the man lame from birth lying outside the gate of the Temple, the eunuch and Cornelius, the God-fearer. Only in Luke is the Devil defeated.

The testing in the wilderness was the first confrontation with Satan. Only Luke emphasized that it is simultaneously a confrontation between the Holy Spirit and Satan. Luke alone mentions that Jesus returned to Galilee “in the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Luke also records a number of incidents involving the healing and the casting out of demons. In Luke 11:20, Jesus uses the phrase, “the finger of God.” Woods explains the Jewish meaning of “the finger of God” in these words: “Behind the Beelzebub periscope, (Lk. 11:14-26), remains the issue of whether Jesus is a ‘true or false prophet.’ The true test is found at Deut. 13:1-5. It is not an issue of ‘signs or wonders’ being performed, for Jesus’ exorcisms were not denied. The true test was a theological one. It related to the revelation of God at the Exodus. Against this background, Jesus’ reference to the ‘finger of God’ because it also answered the charge of Deut. 13:1-5 by stating that his exorcisms were performed by none other than the God of the Exodus. This established him as the true prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22), mighty in word and deed (Lk. 24:19; Acts 7:22). At this point Luke engages a pesher ‘This is that’ argument before a Jewish audience. Such an audience would have regarded God as the true author of miracle (Acts 2:22), in a typical Jewish fashion."

The remark of the Lucan Jesus that he saw Satan “fall like lightning from the sky” is another example of the victory motif wherein Satan is thrown down from his position of control. This appears to be an allusion to Isaiah 14:1-27 that tells the story of fall of the mighty king of Babylon and the defeat of Assyria that precedes the restoration of Israel. In his second book, Luke demonstrated that the disciples could defeat Simon Magnus, Bar Jesus and the Seven Sons of Sceva, all further examples of the victory motif.

In reading the Passion as recorded in the synoptic gospels, one can not help but notice that Satan has disappeared from Matthew and Mark. Luke tells us: “Then Satan entered into Judas” and then Judas met with the chief priests and agreed to betray Jesus. Satan is the chief instigator in Luke but has no role in Matthew and Mark. Satan is also mentioned in the Lucan scene where Peter’s denial is predicted. The last mention of Satan in Matthew and Mark is the Confession at Caesarea Philippi. Not only is Satan missing in the Lucan version, so is the name of the location of the place where Peter makes his confession.

What is the role of Satan in Luke and why is Satan more prominent in Luke than Matthew and Mark? Perhaps, Luke makes Satan more prominent so that the Demise of the Devil is more significant.

The Lucan Paul explained that it was his mission to persuade Gentiles to “to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Although Paul acknowledged the power and presence of Satan in Romans 16:20, 1 Cor. 5:5, 7:5; 2 Cor. 11, 11:14 and 12:7, and Luke has an extensive and thematic treatment of Satan in his writings, Matthew and Mark in their rewriting of the Passion story, wrote Satan out of the script. Neyrey states: “The conflict between Satan and Jesus, the apostles and the Church is of major importance for Christians, for it stresses the cosmic significance and radical importance of Jesus’ work.” Jesus proclaimed the ruin of Satan in these words unique to Luke: “I saw Satan fall like lightening.”

In the next chapter, the Lucan Jesus told the parable of the strong man to explain what is meant by the fall of Satan. Many in the audience believed the parable referred to “that fox”, Herod Antipas.

Herod Antipas was one of many people who speculated about the true identity of Jesus and whether or not he was the Prophet Elijah who had returned. The Prophet Elijah was the subject matter of considerable speculation appearing in many texts of ancient Judaism including Malachi, Sirach and 4th Ezra to name a few.

Recorded history saves memorable impressions of prophetic religious leaders speaking to the centers of power against the king's excesses and religious practices that had gone awry. These events were worth recording. The Herod Antipas made a point of seeing Jesus much like Babylonian King made a point of seeing Jeremiah. There must be a fascination about men like Micah, Jeremiah and Jesus speaking to the centers of power that attract men to them like the Hezekiah, Sennacherib and Herod Antipas.

Jesus tells the Parable of the Strong Man. It is generally agreed by the commentators that the message of the parable is that “The absence of positive attachment to Christ involves hostility to Him.” None of the commentators have suggested that the background to this parable may be one of the Dead Sea Scroll documents.

In the Apocryphon of Elijah (4Q382), Elijah is said to be returning as the Man of Might to conquer the powers of the nations. The return of Elijah was a concept that the people, who went out into the desert, strongly attached to the missions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. Each was seen as a threat. Both were executed to eliminate the threat. The nature of the threat may have been based upon the perception that John the Baptist and Jesus were both perceived as Elijah returning as the Man of Might to conquer the powers of the nations.

With this background, one can better understand how Jesus could tell a parable depicting himself as the Man of Might and therefore “the stronger one” predicted by John the Baptist who was able to overcome the strong man.

The Parable of the Strong Man answered the question that Herod Antipas asked: “‘John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?’ And he sought to see him.” Luke also recorded: “When Herod [Antipas] saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him.”

Herod Antipas was perplexed. Lack of understanding is a theme resonating throughout the Gospel of Luke. Herod Antipas was also a strong man. He was the son of Herod the Great and became tetrarch of Galilee on the death of his father.

We can now offer an explanation of the enigmatic verse in Luke 23:12 which states: “And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.” Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate apparently agreed that it would be better for them if Jesus were crucified so that the threat to national security would be removed. Little did they realize that their decision made it possible for the stronger man to conquer death and proclaim the feast of victory for all. The final irony needs to be stated: The so-called strong man was eaten by worms.

Luke tells us that Philip used the passage from Isaiah 53:7-8 LXX that the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading as the starting point of the good news of the suffering Jesus as the Isaianic suffering servant of Isaiah 53 LXX. Philip’s explanation probably included the story from the 24th chapter, where Luke tells us that Jesus began with Moses and the prophets to explain to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus the things about himself, especially that “the Christ should suffer these things and enter his glory.”

Margaret Barker has noted that “There is nothing in the MT of the prophets which describes a suffering Messiah who sees the glory of God, so the story in Luke presupposes the Qumran version of Isaiah.” Barker had earlier stated that “The Qumran Isaiah describes an anointed one who has been transfigured, suffers, and then sees the light, presumably of the Glory of God.”

It is no wonder that early Christian theology saw in the symbolism of the cross the expression of glory, irresistible power and divine efficacy. The victory motif was held in high esteem in the early church.

In 1930, the Swedish theologian, Gustaf Aulen wrote Christus Victor wherein he noted the importance of a Divine conflict in which Christ “fights against and triumphs over evil powers of the world, the tyrants under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to Himself.” Aulen states that this emphasis on the victory over all enemies, Christ and ours, in death and resurrection, which he calls the classic theory of atonement, dominated the thinking of most early Christian writers. Leon Morris, writing in 1965, indicated that Aulen recently asserted that “The paying of penalty, the offering of sacrifice, and the rest (ransom) are discarded. Victory is all that matters.”

In the economy of salvation, marketing the brand is important. This is as true today as it was in the first century of Christianity. We know that the victory model of salvation was widely used successfully in early Christianity. This is probably because both Jews and Greeks knew a world dominated by hostile powers. The resurrection is the trophy of victory in this theme. It is an integral part of the defeat of death. Salvation by divine victory over the adversary is a Lucan theme with deep scriptural roots.

Soteriological themes are linked with Christological terms. This soteriological idea of victory would work best with the savior who is God in person, but the firm monotheism of the first followers of Jesus would find such a figure impossible to incorporate into the theme. The paradigm shift did not take place overnight. Initially the followers of Jesus presented the idea in a typically Jewish fashion. In discussing the “finger of God” it was noted that Luke engaged a pesher “This is that” argument before a Jewish audience. Such an audience would have regarded God as the true author of miracle (Acts 2:22), in a typical Jewish fashion. Luke, in the same fashion, stated that “God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.”

Andrew Criddle, posting at Hypotyposeis, noted that the earliest Christian artwork was not the depiction of a suffering Christ on the cross but a Christ victorious on the cross. Criddle, writing at another site, wrote: “Early representations of the crucifixion are generally of the Christus Victor type with little indication of suffering and death and with Christ almost 'reigning from the cross'. Later the Christus Patiens type becomes prominent with the suffering and death of the crucified savior made more prominent. This later develops particularly in the Western tradition after 1000 CE into images emphasizing the pathos of the crucifixion and designed to encourage meditation on Christ's suffering.”

In Acts 10:36-38 we read: “You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” Why does Peter mention “preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ”? Luke uses the Greek word εἰρήνη for peace more times in Luke-Acts than any other NT writer.

Dunn has indicated “the language [of verse 36] is clearly built round or two deliberate scriptural allusions.” Dunn mentions Psalm 107:20 which has “he sent out his word and healed them” and Isaiah 52:7 “those who preach peace.” Dunn also indicates that “Psalm 107:20 is echoed again in 13:26 and Isa. 52:7 is cited in Romans 10:15 as part of a catena of texts.” It is important to note that in verse 36 Peter proclaims the word was sent to Israel but Peter clarified his explanation to Cornelius by adding that Jesus Christ “is Lord of all.” Thus, in the words of Soards, “the universality of God’s work and Jesus’ lordship are emphasized.” Turner has established that there are linguistic parallels between Acts 10:35-38 and the Nazareth pericope in Luke 4. The statement in verse 38 that Jesus was “anointed” is an explicit allusion to Luke 4:16.

In Romans 10:15 we read: “And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!’” There is no question that Paul is alluding to Isaiah 52:7 which reads: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.’” Is Paul also alluding to Luke-Acts?

What message about the gospel of peace did Peter impart to Cornelius? The most comforting part about the gospel of peace that Peter preached to Cornelius was that Cornelius was also a member of the people of God.

The pervasive call to repentance of the Lucan Jesus has economic and political consequences. The Lucan Jesus rejects the false peace gained through war and violence as exemplified by Roman imperial might, Maccabean zealotry, Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian kingdom. Peace and justice is established not by violence but by the transforming understanding of the real meaning of peace. This transforming understanding is provided by the Lucan Messiah of Peace.

Although Luke states that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to David, he qualifies this by presenting the Lucan Jesus’ humble royalty. At the birth of Jesus, the chorus of angels are singing peace and when Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey the chorus is singing “Blessed is the king that cometh in the name of the Lord. Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” This was a different kind of victory procession. A humble king riding on a donkey with an army carrying psalms is not a threat to Pax Romana.

“And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it, saying, ‘Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes.’”

They did not understand the ministry of peace nor did they understand that “God bestows salvation on the people in the form of peace.”

Especially important to the understanding of the ministry of the Lucan Jesus, according to Tannehill, “is a group of texts in Isaiah which lists in series some of the same disabilities as in Luke 7:22 and proclaims they will be removed.” The preaching of the good news of God’s reign (Lk. 16:16) is presented as the beginning of a new age where the healings and exorcisms of Jesus represent the “release of prisoners” from the bondage of evil spiritual beings. The mighty acts of Jesus represent God’s visitation which is associated with redemption and salvation. In Luke, the list of those who are unexpectedly invited to the banquet is similar to the list of those healed in Lk. 7:22. It is the arrival of the ministry of Jesus, which is continued by the apostles, which brings salvation.

Only in the writings of Luke are the themes of peace, repentance, exclusion, the existence of evil spiritual beings and the defeat of Satan are presented as integral parts of the gospel message to all people with blemishes of the victory in death and resurrection over all enemies. The victory announced in the writings of Luke later became a pyrrhic victory.

This is a nine page snapshot of a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2009

Reinhold Niebuhr

2009-03-22T13:07:00.000-05:00

Shortly after I was born Rev. Reinhold Niebuhr, professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, where my father was one of his students, visited my parents’ apartment to meet the newborn baby and to pronounce his now famous serenity benediction. I mention Niebuhr became I believe he was the first to apply the concept of a pyrrhic victory to theology although his application would perhaps be more appropriate to discussions about the torture policy of the George W. Bush administration. The use of coercion as an ally, and I am paraphrasing Niebuhr, can result in a pyrrhic victory. But I am working on an article that will explain the difficulties people have understanding the victory motif in Luke-Acts and if these difficulties explain why an alternate theory was developed by Christianity.

Copyrighted 2009

Pyrrhic Victory

2009-03-21T15:45:00.000-05:00

I just spent a week on trial in a lawsuit where the bank as the escrow agent made disbursements of $800,000 to the builder contrary to instructions which the bank had solicited from my client by having him signed its pre-printed form. The judge took the matter under advisement and will render a verdict shortly. In my humble opinion, the verdict winner will enjoy a pyrrhic victory.

Naturally, I wondered if the concept of a pyrrhic victory could be applied to the difficulties people have understanding the victory motif in Luke-Acts and if these difficulties explain why an alternate theory was developed by Christianity.

However, not having much sleep this past week, I am reluctant to develop my thoughts further. It is however, an interesting idea that is closely related to another idea I had this past week. Perhaps after my long weekend nap, I can begin to write again.

Copyrighted 2009

Messiah of Peace

2009-03-03T19:36:00.000-05:00

The pervasive call to repentance of the Lucan Jesus, as outlined yesterday, has economic and political consequences. I did not appreciate these consequences because I was so focused on establishing the identity of most excellent Theophilus as the High Priest. The Lucan Jesus rejects the false peace gained through war and violence as exemplified by Roman imperial might, Maccabean zealoty, Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian kingdom. Peace and justice is established not by violence but by the transforming understanding of the real meaning of peace. This transforming understanding is provided by the Lucan Messiah of Peace.

“And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it, saying, ‘Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes.’”

They did not understand the ministry of peace nor did they understand that “God bestows salvation on the people in the form of peace.”

A work in progress.

Copyrighted 2009

Rewriting Jonah

2009-03-02T19:48:00.001-05:00

When Josephus mentions Jonah in Ant. Book 9 Sections 204-214, the storm is important while mention of the whale occur almost an afterthought. The sermon to the Ninevites is altered as well. It becomes a prophecy foretelling their loss of dominion over Assyria. The repentance of the people of Nineveh is not mentioned at all.[1] This is quite surprising since Josephus claims both at the beginning and at the end of his story of Jonah to tell the story as he found it in Hebrew scripture.

The judgments threaten by the prophets are conditional; if sinners repent they will be saved. This is the teaching of Jeremiah, Joel and Jonah. Anyone reading about the Josephan Jonah would not know that Jonah had preached to the people of Nineveh that they would be destroyed nor would they know that the people had repented and the city was not destroyed.

Luke tells us that Jesus uses the repentance of Nineveh as a rebuke to the present unrepentant generation and that he even uses the failure of Tyre and Sidon for the same purpose. Jesus invited his audience to reflect on Pilate’s killing of the Galileans and on the death of those on whom the tower in Siloam fell. He said, “Unless you repent you will all perish likewise.”

When there is repentance, there is joy in heaven. The Lucan Jesus in successive parables repeats this statement. Repentance means an end to sinning. When this happens there is joy beyond this earth. Matthew has a parable about a shepherd looking for a lost sheep and his joy in finding it. In Luke’s version of the story, Jesus says “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”

The Jonah story is about the capability of God to complete his plan. Jonah and Jesus are both great preachers who are vindicated. The people of Ninevah repented; the people of Israel should follow their example. The Lucan Jesus is repeating this message and has emphasized it with his numerous references to repentance, more so than Matthew and Mark, so much so that Luke has been called the gospel of repentance.

Jonah is also about unexpected reversals. In 2 Kings 14:25-27, God permits the expansion of the borders of Israel “according to the word that his servant Jonah uttered” despite the nation’s persistent sinfulness. In Jonah 3:10, God reverses the evil that Jonah pronounced against Ninevah.

The Sign of Jonah is about repentance and eschatological reversals. Luke understood. Luke refers to the future reversal of social roles in the Magnificat at the beginning of his gospel. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is the final part of the unique Lucan triad, the parables having in common the theme of lost and found or recovered. For those who have studied the various implications, it is the story of the ultimate outcast, a person reduced in status to feeding pigs, expressed in the language of economics. Darrell Bock has said the message is that “absolute reversal results from repentance. . . .”

Josephus delivered a political message in his rewriting of the story of Jonah, not a religious message. He did so to undermine the use of story of Jonah by Luke to support the need for repentance and the inclusive views of Luke and Paul for those who do repent.

Copyrighted 2009

[1] Josephus does not deny the importance of repentance. Josephus rehabilitated Rehoboam and Ahab by depicting their sincere repentance.

Rewriting Elijah

2009-02-28T19:28:00.002-05:00

At the beginning of the First Century, Elijah was probably the most important prophet in Judaism. The Prophet Elijah was the subject matter of considerable speculation appearing in many texts of ancient Judaism including Malachi, Sirach and 4^th Ezra to name a few. Malachi had issued a prophecy that Elijah will play a key role at the end of the days. Malachi had said: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:”

“Most important, perhaps in reference for Christian claims for Jesus (see Paul 1985, 472-480; Fornaro 1979 431-436), Josephus avoids the Biblical reference to Elijah as a ‘man of G-d’ (1 Kings 17:18; 17:24).” In fn8, Feldman notes that Josephus does use the expression with respect to Moses in Ant 3.180. Feldman indicates “The key characteristic of Josephus’ remolding of the biblical portrait of Elijah is his elimination of its Zealot features.” In Josephus, it is the Israelites who kill the prophets of Baal not Elijah (Ant. 8.343). But later when the Josephan Elijah is asked why he fled Queen Jezebel, he says it is because he killed the prophets of Baal and is being pursued by Queen Jezebel.

Although I had planned to focus on the usage of the word “peace” in the Gospel of Luke during Lent, I could not help but wonder about Josephus’ rewriting of Elijah, the zealot prophet. This is one of many works in progress.

Copyrighted 2009

Gospel of Peace

2009-02-22T15:39:00.001-05:00

It is important to note that in verse 36 Peter proclaims the word was sent to Israel but Peter clarified his explanation to Cornelius by adding that Jesus Christ “is Lord of all.” Thus, in the words of Soards, “the universality of God’s work and Jesus’ lordship are emphasized.”

Turner has established that there are linguistic parallels between Acts 10:35-38 and the Nazareth pericope in Luke 4. The statement in verse 38 that Jesus was “anointed” is an explicit allusion to Luke 4:16.

This is a work in progress for Lent 2009.

Copyrighted 2009

Shalom for the shepherds

2009-02-18T08:23:00.001-05:00

The angels informed the shepherds of the good news ending their announcement with these words: “and on earth peace among those whom he favors.” Luke has announced the birth of the new age. Danker said: “All ceremonial requirements are shattered with this one piece of good news, for even unclean shepherds are welcomed in God’s presence.” Yamaski states: “peace is stipulated as a resulting state for those experiencing God’s salvation. To put it another way, God bestows salvation on the people in the form of peace.”

In these uncertain troubled and violent times, I would like to spend a little time thinking about Luke’s distinctive uses of the Greek word εἰρήνη. Perhaps this will be my project for Lent.

Copyrighted 2009

Luke and the Holiness Code

2009-02-14T21:58:00.001-05:00

Luke has an interest in showing that Jesus and the Jerusalem community are following the teachings and traditions of the Priestly Narrative as interpreted by Ezekiel, Sirach, et al. The priestly writers were interested in temple rituals, the ordering of the priesthood, the sacred holidays, the rite of circumcision, and worship at the Jerusalem Temple.

The Priestly Narrative includes a section added to it known as the Holiness Code. Eichrodt documented the innovative nature of the Holiness Code but it was Ringgren who first observed that the Holiness Code had moral content. Drawing on Eichrodt and Ringgren, Knohl asserted that “Isaiah is the only prophet who unequivocally expresses the moral dimension of holiness.”

Under the title, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God, am Holy” (Lev. 19:2), the Holiness Code includes the injunctions on Sabbath observance and the sacrifice of the whole offerings along with the command to take care of the poor and the prohibition against robbery, fraud and showing partiality in justice. (Lev. 19:2-15).

The Prophet Isaiah tells us the Lord God “cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.” The Lord God does not desire the offerings of Israel and their Sabbaths but the correction of injustice and oppression and upholding the cause of the orphan and the widow (Isa. 1:11-17).

Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, “prophesied saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel . . . that we should be saved from our enemies . . . that we might serve Him in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life.” The Lucan Jesus demonstrated what it means to “serve Him in holiness and righteousness”, inter alia, by telling the Parable of the Good Samaritan. In this parable, Jesus tells the lawyer and the audience who is their neighbor thereby explaining the moral content of Leviticus 19:33-34 which is part of the Holiness Code. The Lucan Jesus adopted the Holiness Code and unequivocally expressed the moral dimension of holiness. He taught that we should be merciful as God is merciful.

One further indication that the Luke has an interest in the Holiness Code is shown by the theme of the return of the remnant of Israel to God which common to Isaiah and the Holiness Code (Isa. 10:20; Lev. 26:39-45) and also to Luke-Acts (Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts (2005).

This is a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2009

Day of Rest

2009-02-08T18:53:00.001-05:00

Some one suggested on the internet that mixing a little religion in the economic stimulus package was not all bad. Unfortunately, I did not read the article so now I am wondering what that religious content might be. How about a day of rest?

Being open 7 days a week has got to be a drain on the employees and management. Chick-Fil-A is a unique fast food operation in that it has never been open on Sunday and has made money every year since 1946.

Over the past twenty years, Americans have increased the number of hours they work every week and have reduced the amount of vacation time they have taken every year. This weekend I had appointments Saturday and Sunday because I was unable to meet the people during the week. However when I do work weekends I try to take time off during the week to avoid exhaustion and fatigue which is the result of working more hours and completing less work. I find I am more productive when I work 4 and half days a week than when I am working more hours.

I am not advocating a return to the mandatory Sunday Blue laws or every place being closed on the same day. I am suggesting voluntarily introducing some common sense. A day of rest with the resulting quiet time may actually stimulate the economy.

Copyrighted 2009

Negro Spirituals Goes Public

2009-02-04T09:53:00.001-05:00

Negro spirituals were created over a 200-year period during the time of slavery by the spiritual leaders of the slave community. They combined elements of church services they overheard with experiences of slavery and passages from the Bible into music that illustrates biblical messages of freedom and hope for a better future. Slaves created their songs of sorrow and hope to sustain them. Negro spirituals -- songs like “Go Down, Moses," “Go Tell It on the Mountain” and “He's Got the Whole World in His Hand” – tell the story of slavery and the black struggle.

One of the best-known spirituals describes the Biblical tale of Moses leading the Jewish people out of slavery in Egypt. The Exodus story was very powerful for the African-American slaves.

“When Israel was in Egypt's land: Let my people go,

Oppressed so hard they could not stand, Let my people go.

Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt land

Tell old Pharaoh,

Let my people go.”

Most Americans were unaware aware of the existence of the Spirituals until after the Civil War. In 1871, the Negro spirituals goes public when the Fisk Jubilee Singers, in an attempt to raise money for the nearly bankrupt Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, gave concerts in Europe and America and helped make American Negro spirituals become extremely popular. The first national tour raised $20,000 after a slow painful start. The original repertoire had included classical music, popular ballads and patriotic anthems. However they noticed the strong response of the audience when they sang one of their cabin songs. The group had been reluctant to sing its slave music for whites.

In November 1871 they visited Oberlin Ohio and waited in the back of the church for a break in the proceedings of a national convention of white Congregational ministers. On the afternoon of their second of day of waiting there was a break in the convention proceedings. The 9 member group slowly and quietly entered the choir loft and began singing unannounced “Steal Away to Jesus.” The group was well received singing its authentic slave music. One of the convention delegates, Reverend Henry Ward Beecher, invited the group to perform at his church, Plymouth Congregational in Brooklyn NY. They collected baskets of money that evening. The next day the NY Tribune called the slave songs “the only true native school of American music.” These songs, which the 9 member group including 7 former slaves had been ashamed to sing, were designated a National Treasure by Congress in 2007.

There is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole.

There is a balm in Gilead to heal the sin-sick soul.

One of these mornings bright and fair,

I’m gonna lay down my heavy load.

Gonna kick my wings and cleave the air,

I’m gonna lay down my heavy load.

Copyrighted 2009

There is a balm in Gilead

2009-02-01T18:53:00.001-05:00

Today in church we sang this well known Negro spiritual that is based on the text in Jeremiah 8:22. Gilead was famed for its physicians and the balm made from a tree found in the area (see Genesis 37:25). But there is more to the story of the Negro spiritual than the brief descriptions reveal.

According to Arthur Jones, Wade in the Water: The Wisdom of the Spirituals, 3^rd ed. (2005), “The important spiritual ‘Balm in Gilead’ expresses the predominant experience of hope and healing that has been at the center of the African American experience since the beginning of slavery and has always received expression in the spirituals. This song, with its gently soothing melody and lyrics, offers the final word on matters of suffering, struggle and resistance.”

Howard Thurman, perhaps the most knowledgeable interpreters of the spirituals, in his analysis in Deep River and the Negro Spiritual Speaks of Life and Death (1975) said the Negro slave songwriter “straightened the question mark in Jeremiah’s sentence into an exclamation point: ‘There is a balm in Gilead!’ Here is a note of creative triumph.”

Again quoting Jones, “As Howard Thurman indicates, ‘Balm in Gilead’ is an especially important song in the spirituals tradition expressing the ability of enslaved Africans to transform sorrow into joy to make a way where no way seemed possible.”

I plan to read more about Howard Thurman.

Copyrighted 2009

Pyramid Scheme

2009-01-31T16:42:00.000-05:00

I read a very interesting article by Patrick Rapa in Philadelphia citypaper, a local weekly newspaper explaining the proposal of a Drexel professor about how pyramids were built. As I understand the article, Professor Barsoum published a paper indicating the pyramids were built with two components: “rough stone quarried and hauled into place” constituting 80% of the material used and concrete for the “smooth uniform arrangement of the outer blocks” and possibly the inner walls for the remaining 20%.

This concrete material was made on site from materials locally available: “water, lime (by heating limestone), diatomaceous earth (a crumply, porous rock made of fossilized algae) and limestone rubble and limestone rubble (ground to powder).” Professor Barsoum does not claim to be the first to propose a concrete solution. His proposal explains how the Egyptians could have made concrete from materials locally available that would have be stronger than Portland Cement.

Obviously I need to think about this.

Copyrighted 2009

Sacred Space

2009-01-25T12:53:00.002-05:00

The phrase “sacred space” does not appear in Purity and Danger yet there is no question that the concept of sacred space derives in part from the rules about purity found in the Book of Leviticus. In this Book, Yahweh addresses Aaron: “You must distinguish between the holy and the profane and between the clean and unclean.” When Ezekiel attached the Jerusalem priesthood, he said: “They have not distinguished between the holy and profane; they have not made known the difference between the unclean and clean.”

The concept of sacred space is also derived in part from the idea of the land as a theological symbol of Yahweh’s benevolence. Land is more than a place to live. In Judaism, land always involves the concept of sacred space that god provides his chosen people. Since the sanctuary was built to house the divine presence, it was a holy place where certain standards of purity had to be maintained.

Somehow from these rules about purity and the idea about the land, a notion of sacred space developed. Richard D. Nelson said: “Sacred space provided the human mind with a fixed center, the solace of formed order in the midst of chaos.” That center was the “holy of holies” at the center of the sanctuary of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Sacred space is not permanent. God could choose to withdraw the divine presence from the Jerusalem Temple and the Temple would no longer be sacred. The Qumran community believed that the divine presence had already departed from the Temple in Jerusalem. Others believed that the idea that God lived in a house build by human hands was idolatrous. Josephus recorded that in the spring of 66 C.E. the “Shekinah” (divine presence) departed from the Temple.

These ideas and beliefs no doubt influenced the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews and no doubt caused them to waiver in their faith. The author of Hebrews provides solace for those concerned about the high priest they left behind and the sacred space they no longer enjoy. The author made Jesus the new High Priest and his heavenly abode the sacred space. In Hebrews, there is no sacred space on earth; sacred space is to be found in the heavenly sanctuary. When they respond to the call to go “outside the camp,” they move toward the sacred and their heavenly city.

The Epistle synthesizes the atonement beliefs of Judaism, Luke-Acts and Pauline theology by providing that Jesus Christ is the new High Priest and that heaven is the sacred space why Jesus resides. Why does the author of Hebrews equate Jesus Christ with the Jewish High Priest? Because the recipients of the Epistle are Jewish followers of Jesus and believe that the duties of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement and his death have atoning value. They perhaps were disturbed by the implications of Lucan and Pauline theology. They are comfortable with the theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews because its inclusive approach using imagery drawn chiefly from the Levitical cult and Day of Atonement meant that they are no longer orphans. The idea of sacred space is retained in a new setting, “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come.”

This work in progress draws in part upon The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews and further elaborates my ideas published ten years ago.

Copyrighted 2009

The Samaritans

2009-01-20T14:42:00.000-05:00

Outside the Camp suggested that the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote to the Jewish Christian communities in Jerusalem served by the ministry of meals. One of those communities was the Samaritans. There are a number of points favorable this identification noted by Knox (1927) and Scobie (1973). Manson observed that Acts 6-7 and Hebrews have eight common elements. Knox and Scobie have nine points which have been critiqued by Hurst (1990).

None of these scholars considered the possibility that the recipients of Hebrews represented a mixed audience each attempting to remain exclusive. Both groups had been excluded from the Temple and its alms distribution program yet they were unable to share the community meals provided by the followers of Jesus.

The Hellenists complained that their widows were neglected in the distribution of food. The surviving spouse had been a member of the community by virtue of marriage. That the surviving spouse was no longer a member suggest that the surviving spouse was not Jewish and further suggest that intermarriage was the issue lurking in the background that had resulted in the problem described in Acts.

The author is not talking about the sharing of food or the economy. He was talking about sacred space and the inclusion of outsiders.

This is a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2009

Outside the camp

2009-01-03T15:42:00.001-05:00

In my 1999 article, The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews, I suggested that the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote to Jewish communities who were “stranded from Judaism and they were uncomfortable associating with and engaging in religious services with Gentiles.” I identified this unknown author as Luke. Now ten years later, I return briefly to suggest that Luke wrote to the Jewish Christian communities in Jerusalem.

In Waiting on tables, Part 4, I asked, “Why would two groups not accepted by Judaism be unable to work together and share the resources of the kitchen ministry?” Prior identification of these two groups of Hebrews and Hellenists as Jews and Greek speaking Jews has not solved the puzzle.

The ministry of meals on wheels served two separate communities, neither of which were accepted by Judaism. The seeds of these advances had been planted earlier by the Lucan Jesus and the ministry of the seventy. Josephus provides an additional clue: The Samaritans called themselves Hebrews from the third century BCE [Ant. XI viii 6] but in the first century Jews did not call themselves Hebrews.

This same clue must mean that Luke wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews to Samaritans. There are some additional clues. Luke’s casual usage of the Greek word νηστεία is an indication that Luke and his audience consider the Fast as part of their religious experience because they observed it.[1] This is important in considering the next clue wherein the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the verse, “Let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured.”[2] The author includes himself in the message by his use of the words, “let us”, and includes himself as a member of the Jewish audience being addressed.

The Greek word παρεμβολή translated in Hebrews as “camp” occurs 10 times in 10 verses in the Greek New Testament, UBS 3^rd edition: 6 times in Acts, 3 in Hebrews and once in Revelation. The “camp” is frequently seen by commentators to be Judaism and the summons to go understood as a call to leave Judaism and join the followers of Jesus. Four verses earlier, there is a warning “Do not be carried off by strange teachings” which is a reference to doctrines and practices.

The ministry of meals in Acts 6 served at least two groups not accepted by Judaism but unable to accept each other. The exclusivism that these groups developed with their doctrines and practices was criticized by the author of the Epistle even as he urged them to commit more fully to the followers of Jesus by accepting the abuses of persecution that membership entailed. The author is asking the audience to give up the comforts of their exclusivism and move away from temple Judaism with its corrupt priesthood and accept Jesus as the new High Priest.

These two groups were the Samaritans and the Jews who had adopted Greeks ways.

This is a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008

[1] Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra has stated in The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity that “In the late Second Temple period, νηστεία had become the most common Greek name for Yom Kippur.” The author also notes that Yom Kippur appears in Lev. 23:27; 25:9 and Isa. 1:13-14 LXX as “day of atonement.”

[2] Hebrews 13:13.

Days of their purification

2008-12-23T15:08:00.000-05:00

Bock states that “The better-attested text reads the plural (auton, their), which relates the purification to both Mary and Joseph, . . .” At the end of this paragraph, Bock asks the question: “How could the purification be associated with both, when only the woman needs the purification?”

Exegetically the plural pronoun “their” creates a problem.The law for purification after childbirth only applies to the woman. Therefore some manuscripts change “their” to “her.” However, as noted by Bock, some scholars believe that if Joseph participated in the delivery of the child, he is also unclean for forty days.

Part of Luke's message is that new rules of purity are concerned more about one's relationship to God and less concerned by rules such as the 40 day period observed following birth. My proposal, set forth in the preceding article, resolves a translation problem in Luke 2:22. Scholars did not appreciate why Luke wrote “their purification” but if you recognize the possibility that Yom Kippur is in view, then “their purification” refers both to the purification of Yom Kippur and the purification rules observed following birth and correctly includes both Mary and Joseph.

Thus Luke is exegetically correct but on Yom Kippur he reaffirms the angelic proclamation of the birth of “a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” by having Simeon inform the parents “mine eyes have seen thy salvation” and Anna “spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” This reaffirmation is appropriately announced on Yom Kippur.

This is a work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008