Stanley Fish's New York Times Article

Generally, postmodernism is no friend of Christianity. However, postmodern philosopher, Stanley Fish, has observed something in this article he wrote for the New York Times that Dutch Reformed thinkers (such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kyper) observed years ago. This is a desperately needed perspective for anyone with the opinion that religious thought should not play a role in conversations about science, politics, health, and other social issues.

"Adoption as Sons"

In Romans 8:15, the phrase “adoption as sons” is best understood within the historical context in which it was written. Adoption in the Roman world was much different than adoption in our day. In step 1 of adoption, the Mancipatio, there was a symbolic sale in which, using a scale and copper coins, the father would twice sell his child and them buy him back. He would then sell his child a third time, at which point the sale was final. In step 2, the Vidicatio, the father would make his case for making a legal adoption before the Roman magistrate. In step 3, seven witnesses bore witness to the entire procedure. The results of the adoption were that all of the rights to the old family were severed. All of the rights of the child would then be held by the new family. Here the adopted son was made a full heir to his new father’s estate. The new adoptee was regarded as a new person. And he became the son of the new father in the eyes of the law.

Praise be to God! "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!'"

True Church VS False Church VS Parachurch Organization

The Belgic Confession provides several marks that are helpful as we seek to identify a true church of Christ. According to the Confession, a true church is characterized by the right preaching of the Word of God, the right administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the exercise of church discipline. Such a church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic (The Belgic Confession, 1561, Article 29).

In identifying a false church, the doctrinal standards implied in the right preaching of the Word are especially helpful. While an attitude of tolerance ought to exist toward nonessential doctrines, church discipline should be exercised against those who compromise cardinal doctrines. When a church compromises a doctrine which has historically been understood to be a cardinal doctrine and which is essential to the truth of the gospel, then the organization is not a true church. Similarly, if an organization fails to exercise discipline against a church leader who adheres to false doctrine, the trueness of the church may be brought into question.

A parachurch organization is a specialized institutional ministry which functions to assist the local church, but is not under the authority of a local church. The administration of the sacraments and the exercise of church discipline are helpful in distinguishing the parachurch from the church. If an organization administers the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, then this organization might more rightly be defined as a local church. And if the exercise of church discipline is employed within this organization, the group’s parachurch status might also be brought into question.

Book Review: The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. By Roger E. Olson. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1999.

In his book, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, Roger Olson discusses the development of Christian theology over the course of church history. It is clear that Olson understands the development of Christian theology as a story that has been unfolding over the last two millennia. Olson structures his book into nine parts with approximately four chapters in each part. Throughout each of these nine sections, Olson deals with important issues that marked the development of Christian theology. The story of Christian theology, Olson argues, is centered on one overarching and basic issue. Olson writes, “one thread runs throughout the story of Christian theology and holds the many stories together as a single great narrative of the development of Christian thought. That thread is the common concern all Christian theologians have had with salvation—God’s redemptive activity in forgiving and transforming sinful human beings.”[1] As Olson discusses the major conflicts that have shaped theology over the course of church history—the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the relationship between philosophy and theology, and other issues—he explains how those involved in these various debates were concerned and driven by a concern for eternal salvation. The conflicts over the nature of Christ and the Trinity, for example, were not merely understood to be disagreements about peripheral issues, but were understood to be matters central to the Christian doctine of salvation. Hence, they were controversies in which it was understood that eternal destinies were at stake.

Olson seeks to clarify the nature of the development of theology. He strives to create a greater appreciation for the development of doctrine. Olson explaines that a large number of Christians understand theology as having been delivered as a complete body of doctrine. Examples of this can be observed with the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. Doctines such as these are often taken for granted today.[2] But Christian theology, as it is known today, Olson says, is a result of the work of theologians who have toiled and labored over the course of church history. It is for this reason that he writes with the aim of bringing a deeper appreciation to his readers for the story of the development of theology.

Over the course of the book, Olson tells the story of Christian theology as he sees it. He very capably explains the historical, social, cultural, and religious settings which gave rise to the need for theologians to do theology within those various contexts. Olson’s ability to draw parallels and to recognize connections between the many philosophical systems and cultural ideas that have arisen throughout the centuries, and to explain how these things have contributed to the development of Christian theology, is really quite masterful.

In addition to recognizing the historical connections that have contributed to the development of Christian theology, Olson shows an impressive knowledge of primary sources.[3] A quick glance of the book’s bibliography bears witness to this fact.

While the book has many strengths, I think there is some room for improvement. Firstly, I think that Augsburger rightly notes that Olson’s characterization of John Calvin as a mere organizer of Zwingli’s theology is a bit irresponsible and completely unwarranted.[4] Olson writes on page 413, “to a large extent, all Calvin did was mediate Zwingli’s Reformed theology to the rest of the world." In general, Olson seems to be too quick to diminish the importance and role of those who fought for theological positions that are commonly associated with the reformed theology of today. In addition to his remarks concerning Calvin’s role under Zwingli, this can be seen in the fact that he gives Arminius an equal amount of treatment to that which he gives John Calvin. This is unquestionably disproportionate considering the vast importance of Calvin’s role over that of Arminius. Olson also describes Beza and others as being “obsessed” with the doctrine of predestination,[5] he characterizes five point Calvinism as “rigid,”[6] and he characterizes Arminius as a metaphysical realist for his understanding that it can be deduced from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination that God is the author of evil.[7]

In addition to this, Olson does not discuss Bultman, demythologization, or Tillich, all of which are of such significance as to be an essential part of the story of Christian theology.[8] And so while The Story of Christian Theology is a valuable book—a book which has the potential to be used in both undergraduate and seminary level survey courses—supplementary material is also needed. Carter notes that while Olson draws connections between the various Christian traditions that have come about over the course of church history, that Adrian Hastings surveys the development of Christian thought within the various geographical contexts in which it developed in his A World History of Christianity.[9] Hence, Carter thinks that the two texts complement one another well.

Personally, I found the reading of Olson’s book to be a good experience. And although I am uncomfortable with some of his characterizations of reformed theology, my own understanding of the key people, places, and issues surrounding the history of Christian thought is significantly deepened.

Personally, I would have appreciated it if the author would have done more theology himself. The book has raised some questions for me concerning God’s viewpoint on the various theological conflicts which have come about over the course of the history of the Christian church. But perhaps such a task is best left to another author.

______________________

End Notes

[1] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1999), 13.
[2] Ibid, 16.
[3] Milliard Erickson, review of The Story of Christian Theology, by Roger E. Olson, JETS 43:2 (2000), 346-47.
[4] Daniel Augsburger, review of The Story of Christian Theology, by Roger E. Olson, Church History 71:2 (2002), 447.
[5] Olson, 457.
[6] Ibid, 463.
[7] Ibid, 467.
[8] Ibid, 346.
[9] Kenneth H. Carter, Jr., review of The Story of Christian Theology, by Roger E. Olson, Perspectives in Religious Studies 29:1 (2002), 111-12.

Some Thoughts on the Cross of Christ

The crucifixion is the central truth of the Christian faith. This can be seen in the writings of Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 is a good example of this. Here Paul says that it is of “first importance” and that it is that “by which also you are saved.” Hence, it is absolutely central and essential to the Christian faith and is the truth that is most central to the gospel.

The crucifixion was foretold in the Old Testament. Jesus quotes Psalm 22 when He is being crucified. The reason for this is that Psalm 22 is a detailed foretelling of Christ’s death. This includes the lament, “They pierced my hands and my feet (22:16) and And for my clothing they cast lots. Similarly, Isaiah 53 declares that he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed” (v.5). These prophecies show the importance of the crucifixion in that it had been a central part of God’s divine plan in history.

The crucifixion was God’s chief purpose for the incarnation. This is evident in Mark 10:45 where Jesus says that He came “to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The significance of the crucifixion is that it illustrates both the fullness of God’s love and the fullness of God’s justice and wrath. That it demonstrates God’s love can be seen in Romans 5:8. And we know that the degree to which God’s love is demonstrated in the cross is of the utmost because Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). Yet it also demonstrates God’s justice. This can be seen in Rom 3:25 where God is said to have demonstrated His righteousness by making Christ a propitiation.

Many people have misunderstood (and continue to misunderstand) the meaning of the crucifixion. Some have understood it to mean that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan for the souls of men who are held in bondage by Satan. Satan accepted this payment not knowing that Christ would be resurrected. Satan was then left with nothing. Still others have maintained that the atonement was a payment for the sin of mankind who have failed to give God the honor He is due as God. The problem with this is that it doesn’t take into account that man’s sin is not only against God’s majesty, rather it is also against His love. Another false theory of the atonement is the moral influence theory. This theory says that Jesus death serves as an example over and against the example of Adam. Jesus’ life, including his death, is to be an example for us. It is the ultimate example of how a person is to live in such a way as to fulfill what God requires. Another related theory says that Jesus’ death serves as an example as a martyr. In the same way that Christ died for his convictions, mankind ought to have and live by such strong convictions. Another theory of the atonement is the governmental theory. In this theory, God is the supreme authority. As the supreme authority, His laws are to be obeyed. However, men have not obeyed God’s law. Therefore, God inflicts his wrath for transgression on Jesus in order to illustrate to the world the seriousness of the offense so that men might be more inclined to keep these laws. And then there is the accident theory. This theory says that Jesus death was an accident. Jesus was a mere man who went to far. For this he paid the ultimate price.

The central truth of the atonement is explained in the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. Here God is holy and demands that the sins of mankind be punished. But He has determined to save some from this punishment. Christ’s death is understood to be substitutionary in that Christ dies on behalf of the elect. This can be seen in Isaiah 53 and 2 Cor 5:21. Christ took upon Himself the wrath of God on behalf of those who would believe on Him. He was reckoned a sinner that those who believe might be reckoned as righteous.

Objections to the Doctrine of Election

Election is that eternal act of God whereby He, in the sovereign good pleasure and on no account of foreseen merit, chooses a certain number of men to be recipients of grace and salvation. This is what the Bible teaches (see Romans 9 and Ephesians 1). It should be noted that God’s election is sovereign (Eph 1:11) and gracious (Eph 2:8-9). It is not based on foresight. God did not look down the corridors of time to see who could come to faith. “Foreknowledge” in Rom 8 speaks of a relational knowledge, not a knowledge of mere facts. Scripture never speaks of faith as the basis for God’s election. Election based on something we did prior to God’s work would be an election based on merit. God’s election is unconditional (Rom 9:16). Ultimately, God desires all to be saved. The fact that this is not going to come about needs to be explained by Arminians and Calvinists alike.

Many people object to the idea of election. Some object that election is fatalistic. In this they fail to understand the difference between fatalism and determinism. Fatalism is deterministic, but determinism does not have to be fatalistic. The reason for this is that fatalism is inherently meaningless. Determinism need not be meaningless. God’s election is purposeful, not capricious. God is understood to have sovereignly decreed all that will come to pass. This includes the election of some to salvation. But this is not something that is without meaning. God’s purpose in this is His own glory.

Others object that election is antithetical to “free will.” However, in this they fail to see that “an action is free if causally determined so long as the causes are nonconstraining” (Feinberg). Ultimately, people are free to choose that which they most desire to choose. We choose whatever we want, but what we want stems from who or what we are and what we believe.

Some object that election is not fair. That's correct. The fair thing would be for all people to be eternally condemned. Election is an act of mercy and grace.

Some object that the gospel call cannot be genuine. However, as we proclaim the gospel, we don’t know who will come to Christ. We cannot determine who is elect and who is not. And so we are to proclaim the gospel to everyone. Ultimately, the fact that men cannot respond does not affect the sincerity of the offer. Any who will come may come.

A Comparative Analysis of OT Critics Viviano and Van Seters

Both Pauline Viviano and John Van Seters are contributors to introductory texts on biblical criticism. Viviano has written the second chapter in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application.[1] Here she provides a brief introduction to Old Testament source criticism. Similarly, Van Seters has written a chapter on source critical issues relating to the Pentateuch in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues.[2] In the following essay, I will provide a brief summary of the work of both of these scholars. I will then draw a comparison and make an assessment of their respective approaches. Lastly, I will conclude with some thoughts regarding the value of their respective approaches for the evangelical scholar.

Pauline Viviano
In her essay on source criticism, Pauline Viviano gives a brief introduction to the topic. She begins by defining exactly what it is that source criticism seeks to do. Fundamentally, she says, “source criticism analyzes the biblical text in order to determine what sources were used in its formation.”[3] She further explains that source critics seek to identify the process by which the biblical authors implemented the various stories which are now in the biblical text in order to ascertain which stories belong to which sources.[4] After these sources are identified, she explains, the scholar can then begin to consider issues of date, authorship, style, and setting.[5]

Viviano goes on to provide an overview of the historical development of Old Testament source criticism. She gives a brief synopsis of the Fragmentary Hypothesis, the Supplementary Hypothesis, and the Documentary Hypothesis. Her overview of these approaches, then, provides a springboard for her to move into a more thorough explanation of what becomes the predominant view, namely, the Newer Documentary Hypothesis. By this she is referring to the Documentary Hypothesis as it is developed and expressed by Wellhausen. Viviano explains that this approach, while it undergoes certain refinements, becomes the approach most held by source critics.

Viviano then goes on to explain that the Documentary Hypothesis, as it is expressed by Wellhausen and his predecessors, is a theory in which it is believed that four independent sources (J, E, D, and P) were written and combined over the course of several hundred years.[6] Wellhausen developed a set of criteria which he used to distinguish different styles and types of content between these various sources. These criteria included duplications, similar vocabulary, and other stylistic features.[7] Source critics apply these criteria to the various materials contained in the Old Testament and attempt to determine which materials belong to which sources based upon these criteria.

After explaining the Newer Documentary Hypothesis, Viviano goes on to apply it to Genesis 1-11. She first examines differences in style, vocabulary, and perspectives, and observes seeming inconsistencies, interruptions, and duplications. She then attributes the various materials contained in these chapters to specific sources based on the criteria of the hypothesis . She follows this with a summary of the conclusions she has drawn based on the application of this method to the text.

Based on her analysis, Viviano suggests that there are two sources in Genesis 1-11, namely J and P. She writes, “Genesis 1:1-2:4a; 5; 10; and 11:10-32, taken apart from 2:4b-4:26 and 11:1-9, has a consistency of style, vocabulary, and perspective. When the two strands are separated from each other, duplications and contradictions are eliminated. Genesis 1:2:4a; 5; 10; and 11:10-32 have been attributed to the Priestly author, and Gen. 2:4b-4:26 and 11:1-9 to the Yahwist.”[8] Similarly, although with more difficultly and less certainty, Viviano distinguishes between J and P sources in Genesis 6-9 concluding that Gen. 6:1-8; 7:1-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 16b-17, 22-23; and 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22 belong to the J source while Gen. 6:9-22; 7:6, 9, 11, 13-16a, 18-21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; and 9:1-17 belong to the P source.[9]

Viviano then moves into the final portion of her essay in which she critiques the approach she has just outlined and applied. First, she explains some of the criticisms that have historically been raised noting that the Fragmentary Hypothesis and the Supplementary Hypothesis offer alternative ways of explaining the differences in the various materials found in the Pentateuch. Second, Viviano notes the work of Gunkel and Alt who each suggest (albeit with somewhat different nuances) that the present forms contained in the Pentateuch are underlain by an oral tradition. Here, she says, the chronological development advanced by Wellhausen was undermined by the way the theory of oral prehistory was understood by Gunkel and Alt. Third, she documents G. von Rad’s, M. Noth’s, and R. Rendtorff’s tradition-historical methodology as approaches which turn their focus away from individual sources and provide an alternative paradigm through which to view the development of the Pentateuch.

Noting the work of these scholars and several others, Viviano cautions against “the application of modern literary categories to ancient literature.”[10] She indicates that like Wellhausen and other source critics, form critics and tradition-historical critics—scholars she cites who have challenged the Documentary Hypothesis—have also overstepped their bounds in this regard.[11] Here Viviano seems to rely on a principle of consensuslessness. The growing pessimism amongst Old Testament scholars regarding the Documentary Hypothesis reflects an increasing lack of consensus that should caution them against dogmatism in this regard. This is further solidified by disagreement regarding finer details of the hypothesis. Some, for example, have questioned the existence of E and others have sought to divide sources into further subdivisions. Regarding the lack of agreement in these areas, Viviano notes, “the arguments for these various subdivisions and additional sources have not gained acceptance by many scholars beyond the recognition that the identification and formation of source documents are far more complicated than was once assumed.”[12]

John Van Seters
In his introductory essay to the Pentateuch, John Van Seters begins by discussing the diverse nature of the Pentateuch as this diversity is evidenced in issues related to authorship and genre. Traditionally, he explains, Moses was understood to be the author of the Pentateuch. This is reflected in both Jewish scholarship and the New Testament.[13] However, Van Seters explains that the material contained in the Pentateuch has a diversity which implies more than one author. This diversity is exhibited, for example, in parallel stories whose differences in style suggest that they were written by different authors.[14] Other stories, he says, “appear to contain later additions that give them a new context or theme.”[15] Van Seters indicates that these and other factors have led to the broad consensus that the Pentateuch was produced by multiple authors. In addition, Van Seters says that ANE comparative studies have shown that there is a variety of literary genres contained in the Pentateuch.[16] This, he says, suggests that the authors of the Pentateuch made wide use of a variety of different sources as they composed these documents.[17]

Van Seters moves on to give a brief overview of the various approaches by which various scholars have attempted to distinguish between these authors and their sources. Like Viviano, he gives a short introduction to the history of source criticism. This includes synopses of the Fragmentary Hypothesis, the Supplementary Hypothesis, and the Documentary Hypothesis. He then provides a very brief summary of form criticism and its development. Finally, he looks at the tradition-history approach as developed by von Rad and Noth.

Van Seters then provides a critique of some of the approaches that have been advanced. Tradition-history, he says, is much too speculative. Since scholars do not have access to the oral stages of develop that preceded the current forms of materials contained in the Pentateuch, any conclusion about these traditions is purely speculative. Similarly, Van Seters notes that there is a question about form criticism and its ability to identify the forms of a text from which the current forms developed based on social settings.[18] The reason for this is that scholars have disagreed about whether these social settings can be identified based on the etiologies upon which they are dependent in such a system.[19] Lastly, Van Seters provides a critique of the Documentary Hypothesis. He indicates that many recent developments in Old Testament scholarship have brought tenets of the Documentary Hypothesis into question. These developments are primarily twofold. First, Van Seters says, there are questions about the J and E sources. Should these sources be divided? If so, should they be further divided? On this, he says, Scholars themselves are divided. Second, there is a question about the independence or dependence of sources. Did the various sources which the Pentateuchal authors used develop independently of one another or is their some kind of interrelatedness? Van Seters suggests that there is a level of interdependency. He then spends the vast majority of his essay outlining what he calls the New Supplementary Hypothesis.

Van Seters presents the New Documentary Hypothesis in significant detail, noting the many complexities that are inherent to it. In the New Supplementary Hypothesis, Van Seters suggests that there are three main sources: D, P, and JE (which he refers to as J).[20] These sources roughly correspond to the sources advanced by Wellhausen. However, unlike Wellhausen, Van Seters’ J source comprises Wellhausen’s J and E sources.[21] Van Seters believes that these sources come in the chronological order of D, J, and P. D is from 625 b.c.e., J is from around 540 b.c.e., and P is from around 400 b.c.e.[22] The earliest of these sources, Deuteronomy, Van Seters says, is “the key to understanding the Pentateuch and the historical books that follow.”[23] It is characterized by its sermonic style. The second source, the Yahwist (J) source, is a historical account of the history of Israel. It is a literary history of an antiquity genre that is built upon four separate blocks of pre-J tradition.[24] Lastly, the Priestly source (P) is characterized by its extensive legal code. This, says Van Seters, was typical of a history in which the development of a nations constitution was a significant factor.[25] Scholars are able to identify this source on the basis of style, language, and other criteria that are particular to it.[26] This is a very brief sketch of the approach that Van Seters unpacks at length in his essay.

The Final Analysis
Both Viviano and Van Seters find significant agreement in their analysis of the history and development of source criticism and the Documentary Hypothesis. They both observe the objections brought out by form critics, such as Gunkel, as well as questions raised by proponents of the traditional-historical approach such as von Rad and Noth. Viviano, of course, gives a much more detailed explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis since her ultimate purpose is to provide a detailed critique of it. Van Seters, on the other hand, is writing to explain his own proposal, the New Supplementary Hypothesis, and does not give quite the same space to the Documentary Hypothesis.

The issues Van Seters raises concerning the Documentary Hypothesis center around the question of whether or not the sources contained in the Pentateuch arose independently or whether there is significant interrelatedness. However, it seems that his own approach is dependent upon the presupposition that there is interrelatedness between these sources. This presupposition causes him to interpret the chronology of the sources in a way that makes it possible for later sources to draw upon earlier sources as they are being developed. But this seems to beg the question. If proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis are correct, then sources have been integrated in such a way as to correlate materials which arose independently (although perhaps with a common tradition of some kind). But the presupposition that there is no organic connection leads these scholars to interpret the chronology in a certain way, in the same way that Van Seters’ presupposition that there is an organic connection leads him to do likewise. And so in both instances, there is an extent to which one’s method predetermines the conclusions based upon that method.

One of the notable things about Van Seters’ approach is that it raises significant questions about the Documentary Hypothesis. In light of the fact that the Documentary Hypothesis had been widely held, Van Seters’ analysis should lead scholars to exercise a greater degree of caution and humility. Nevertheless, Van Seters may also want to exercise care as he draws his own conclusions. Just as it now seems that proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis may have been too quick to adopt that position, so too scholars might seek to hold newer positions more tentatively.

This seems to be the strength of Viviano’s analysis. While she recognizes that there may be significant interrelatedness and use of sources, she seems to approach these questions with a level of humility. She seems to be wise in her concerns that contemporary scholars exercise care not to impose modern literary standards on ancient literature. The lack of consensus on the part of scholars should lead to caution as scholars draw conclusions related to these questions. And in the same way that adherents to the Documentary Hypothesis seemed unwilling for a number of years to hear competing views, so too contemporary scholars should be slow to adopt new positions in light of both the complexity of the task and the lack of documentary evidence.

This caution should also be noted by evangelical scholars. In the same way the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis may have imposed modern standards upon ancient literature, so too it seems that some evangelicals have had the tendency to impose modern conceptions of truth upon the Old Testament. This has been especially true as it relates to the question of Mosaic authorship. Although we ought to exercise conviction in relation to those things which we believe God has said, perhaps we have been too unwilling to think seriously about the question of sources. In the same way that liberal scholars have imposed modern standards on ancient literature, maybe we have been too quick to criticize theories which, according to our modern standards of authorship, might compromise Mosaic authorship.

____________________

End Notes

[1] Pauline A. Viviano, “Source Criticism,” To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 35-57.

[2] John Van Seters, “The Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy,” The Hebrew Bible Today, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 3-49.

[3] Viviano, 35.

[4] Ibid, 37.

[5] Ibid, 35.

[6] Ibid, 40.

[7] Ibid, 38.

[8] Ibid, 48.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid, 50.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid, 50-51.

[13] Van Seters, 5.

[14] Ibid, 7.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid, 8.

[18] Ibid, 12.

[19] Ibid, 12.

[20] Ibid, 14.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid, 15.

[24] Ibid, 20.

[25] Ibid, 39.

[26] Ibid, 39.

David Wells on the Holiness of God

Here is an excerpt from No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology, by David Wells:

The loss of the traditional vision of God as holy is now manifested everywhere in the evangelical world. It is the key to understanding why sin and grace have become such empty terms. What depth or meaning, P.T. Forsyth asked, can these terms have except in relation to the holiness of God? Divorced from the holiness of God, sin is merely self-defeating behavior or a breach in etiquette. Divorced from the holiness of God, grace is merely empty rhetoric, pious window dressing for the modern technique by which sinners work out their own salvation. Divorced from the holiness of God, our gospel becomes indistinguishable from any of a host of alternative self-help doctrines. Divorced from the holiness of God, our public morality is reduced to little more than an accumulation of trade-offs between competing private interests. Divorced from the holiness of God, our worship becomes mere entertainment. The holiness of God is the [foundation of reality]. Sin is defiance of God's holiness, the Cross is the outworking and victory of God's holiness, and faith is the recognition of God's holiness. Knowing that God is holy is therefore the key to knowing life as it truly is, knowing Christ as he truly is, knowing why he came, and knowing how life will end.

The Shepherd Leader, by Timothy Witmer: $5.00 for 48 hours

WTS Bookstore is offering Timothy Witmer's book, The Shepherd Leader, for $5 for 48 hours. Phil Ryken of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philidelphia is using this book for their pastors and pastors in training. You can read about and order the book by clicking here.

The Doctrine Which Requires Special Emphasis in Our Day: The Gospel

The doctrine that requires special emphasis in our day is the gospel. Our ministry should be characterized by the centrality of the gospel for believers and unbelievers alike. Much preaching and teaching within the evangelical church is law-centered rather tan gospel-centered. Of couse, God's law is wonderful and we experience great blessing when we obey it. But without the power to keep the law that comes through the life-transforming power of the gospel, the law only brings guilt and condemnation. Too often the gospel is seen only as the way into the kingdom of God and not as the way to live out our faith. Once we're in through the gospel, Christianity becomes all about trying harder to do what God calls me to do. When I fail, I feel guilty and begin to have a sense that I'm not pleasing God. The good news of the gospel is that God forgives me and gives me the gift of Christ's righteousness so that I no longer have to feel guilty. This frees me up to seek Him to save me from the sins with which I continue to struggle. When I have a law-centered mindset, on the other hand, I only feel guilty, like God is displeased with me. Therefore, I think, I cannot come to God until I get my act together.

Blowing Your Own Horn: Conceptions of Boasting in the Greco-Roman World

Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to discuss concepts related to boasting in the Greco-Roman world with an eye toward understanding how these notions might illuminate the Pauline understanding of boasting. Many in the Greco-Roman world who studied the discipline of rhetoric often expressed concern about the way one spoke about oneself. Plutarch, for example, who had much to say about boasting, indicates that boasting both tended to irritate audiences and provided an invitation for criticism. Similarly, most of the descriptions about boasting and self-praise in the Greco-Roman world are negative. However, there were both acceptable forms of boasting and specific contexts in which boasting could was regarded as acceptable. One could, for example, contrast oneself with an opponent in such a way as to downplay one’s own achievements while calling attention to flaws of the opponent. One could use oneself either as an example to be followed or as a reference point for contending parties in seeking to resolve conflict between those parties. One could also and would often point to one’s own achievements or character traits in defending oneself from criticism. In addition, a speaker could use certain subtleties in order to cover boasting. Such subtleties include denying specific achievements that had been spoken by a third party, ascribing one’s achievements to the gods or fate, and refusing to boast while boasting. Ultimately, it seems that many of the characteristics of boasting in the Greco-Roman world are comparable with Paul’s discussions of boasting in several New Testament texts. Thus, I will conclude this paper by comparing and contrasting the concept of boasting in the Greco-Roman world with several statements made by the Apostle Paul in order to seek to understand those statements more fully.

The Rhetorical Inefficiency of Boasting
Attitudes toward boasting in the Greco-Roman world were not completely unlike attitudes about boasting today. Generally speaking, boasting held some rather negative connotations.[1] Boasting was viewed as something arising from deficient character and was generally frowned upon by listeners.[2] There are several notable reasons for this described by those who were schooled in rhetoric.

Boasting as an Irritant to Audiences
Boasting was generally viewed as annoying and bothersome to one’s audience. This is evident in Plutarch’s descriptions of Cicero. Cicero had become looked upon as conceited because of his boasting. Plutarch says, “Cicero made himself generally odious, not by any base action, but by continually praising and magnifying himself. This made him hateful to many.”[3] Further, Plutarch says, Cicero “went so far as to fill his books and writings with the praises of himself; and he made his oratory, which was naturally very pleasant and had the greatest charm, irksome and tedious to his hearers, since this unpleasant practice clung to him like a fatality!”[4]

Similarly, in his textbook on rhetoric, Quintilian says that boasting should be avoided since it tended to irritate audiences. This irritating quality rendered boasting as an ineffective means of persuasion. He describes the perspective of the rhetorician saying, “Every kind of self-laudation is unbecoming, and especially praise of his own eloquence from an orator, as it not only gives offense to his audience, but generally creates in them even a dislike towards him.”[5] This, Quintilian says, also includes the boasting that is implicit in false modesty. Quintilian says, “Yet I know not whether open self-applause is not more tolerable, even from the very undisguisedness of the offense, than the hypocritical boastfulness of those who speak of themselves as poor when they abound with wealth, as obscure when they are of high rank, as weak when they have great influence, as ignorant and incapable of speaking when they are possessed of great eloquence.”[6]

Rhetoricians also describe the various reasons that boasting irritates audiences. Quintilian says that the reason that boasting is so irritating to audiences is because of the specific effect that it has on various kinds of listeners. First, boasting produces envy in those who perceive themselves to be inferior to the one who boasts.[7] Second, boasting produces scorn amongst superiors who recognize the substandard quality of the claims made by the one who boasts.[8] Lastly, says Quintilian, those who are prudent will disapprove because boasting is inherently imprudent.[9] In the same way, Plutarch indicates that audiences are irritated by boasting because “if we listen in silence we appear disgruntled and envious, while if we shy at this we are forced to join in the eulogies and confirm them against our better judgment.”[10] And so the disdain towards boasting seems to be linked to the result that it produces in the hearts and minds of the audience members.

Boasting as an Invitation for Criticism
Not only did boasting annoy one’s audience, but it also provided an opportunity for one to be criticized by an opponent.[11] This is evident in the response by the Thebans to the Plataeans in Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides describes the Thebans response to the boasting of the Plataeans in which the Thebans proclaim, “We must answer their charges and refute their self-praise, in order that neither our bad name nor their good may help them, but that you may hear the real truth on both points, and so decide!”[12] Similarly, the boasting of Apion invites the criticism of Josephus. According to Josephus, Apion suggests that there are no great men who have arisen from among the Jewish people.[13] There are, says Apion, no artistic geniuses or reputable philosophers such as Socrates, Zeno, or Cleanthes.[14] Josephus writes:

He enumerates Socrates and Zeno and Cleanthes, and some others of similar prestige. After all of this, he then adds himself to them, which is the most remarkable thing of all that he says. And he proclaims that Alexandria is blessed because it has such a citizen in it as he! For he was the fittest man to be a witness to his own deeds, although he has appeared to all others no better than a wicked charlatan, of a corrupt life and ill discourses; on which account one may justly pity Alexandria, if it should value itself upon such a citizen as he is.[15]

It is for these reasons that Plutarch, Quintilian, and other rhetoricians urge orators to exercise care in the use of self-praise.

Acceptable Forms of Boasting
Not all boasting was looked down upon in the Greco-Roman world. As Betz has noted, it seems that there are two divergent conventions.[16] Plutarch says, “It is agreed that to speak to others of one’s own importance or power is offensive, but in practice not many even of those who condemn such conduct avoid the odium of it.”[17] Thus, in his On Praising Oneself Inoffensively, Plutarch seeks to describe acceptable forms of boasting. These two conceptions of boating that existed in the Greco-Roman world are probably best explained by the fact that there are differences in the various contexts in which boasting can occur. Plutarch and others view these different contexts as determinative in whether or not the boasting in question was viewed as offensive or inoffensive.[18]

There are several forms of boasting which were viewed as acceptable in the Greco-Roman world. One could, for example, implement boasting in order to defend oneself against an opponent. This is what is illustrated by Demosthenes as he defends himself against his opponents Aeschines and Philocrates. Demosthenes urges his audience to examine the actions of Aeschines and Philocrates and to compare them with his own.[19] In another conflict, Demosthenes responds to criticism by speaking specifically regarding his own character and achievements. He writes:

With a soul upright, honest and incorruptible, appointed to the control of more momentous transactions than any statesman of my time, I have administered them throughout in all purity and righteousness. On those grounds I claim this distinction. As for my fortifications, which you treated so satirically, and my entrenchments, I do, and I must, judge these things worthy of gratitude and thanks; but I give them a place far removed from my political achievements. I did not fortify Athens with masonry and brickwork: they are not the works on which I chiefly pride myself. Regard my fortifications as you ought, and you will find armies and cities and outposts, seaports and ships and horses, and a multitude ready to fight for their defense. These were the bastions I planted for the protection of Attic so far as it was possible to human forethought; and therewith I fortified, not the ring-fence of our port and our citadel, but the whole country. Nor was I beaten by Philip in forethought or in armaments; that is far from the truth. The generals and the forces of the allies were beaten by his good fortune. Have I any proofs of my claim? Yes, proofs definite and manifest. I ask you all to consider them.[20]

According to convention, this kind of boasting was viewed as excusable. It was even looked upon as something that the orator was forced to do. Such seems to be the case in Cicero’s letter to Lucceius. Here Cicero indicates that he will be forced to engage in self-praise if Lucceius is prevented from providing commendations on his behalf.[21] In another, albeit similar, situation, Quintilian defends Cicero on the grounds that he was forced to enter into boasting. Quintilian writes:

He had either to defend those whose aid he had received in suppressing the conspiracy of Catiline, or he had to justify himself against popular odium, which he was so far from being able to withstand that he had to go into exile as a punishment for having saved his country, so that frequent allusions to achievements in his consulship may be thought to have been made less from vanity than for self-defense.[22]

In the eyes of Quintilian, this situation had forced Cicero to resort to self-praise. Consequently, the coercion provided justification for Cicero’s boasting.

Another form of boasting that was often viewed as acceptable from the standpoint of the rhetorician was boasting in which the orator used himself as an example to be followed. Plutarch indicates that boasting could also be used by a speaker if he was using himself as a moral example for his audience. He writes:

Consider, then, whether a man might praise himself to exhort his hearers and inspire them with emulation and ambition. For exhortation that includes action as well as argument, and presents the speakers’ own example and challenge, is endued with life: it arouses and spurs the hearer, and not only awakens his ardor and fixes his purpose, but also affords him hope that the end can be attained and is not impossible.[23]

In a similar way, Dio Chrysostom seeks to provide a defense of Nestor’s engagement in self-praise as portrayed in Homer’s Iliad. Nestor boasts concerning the fact that important men look to him for advice and heed his word. This, then, serves as the basis for Nestor’s argument to Agamemnon and Achilles that they should listen to him. Concerning this, Watson notes, “This self-praise was considered acceptable because it secured the attention, compliance, and imitation of the audience.”[24]

Subtleties Used to Cover Boasting
In addition to acceptable forms of boasting, rhetoricians note various subtleties that can be used to cover boasting. An orator could, for example, deny the truth of specific achievements. This was a sort of false humility that was used to subtly draw attention to the orator’s achievements. Keener says that according to Fronto, “One orator had many examples of his greatness read, dismissing each in succession by noting that no one would want to hear them.”[25] An orator could likewise minimize negative perceptions by ascribing that about which he boasted to the gods, fate, or others. Quintilian describes Cicero’s boasting as excusable, partly because “he attributes it sometimes to the meritorious efforts of the senate, sometimes to the providence of the immortal gods.”[26] Plutarch also describes this approach saying that “those who are forced to speak in their own praise are made more endurable by one procedure in particular: not to lay claim to everything, but to disburden themselves, as it were, of honor, letting part of it rest with chance, and part with God.”[27]

Another subtly used by orators was refusing to boast within the context of implicit boasting. Cicero, for example, “declined to comment on his greatness; his rival, however, was clearly unfit, and if Cicero, who had spent his entire life developing the requisite skills appeared inadequate, his rival must be less equipped!”[28] One could also offset the negative perceptions of boasting by seasoning boasts with statements connoting humility. Plutarch explains such tact saying, “Many also blunt the edge of envy by occasionally inserting into their own praise a confession even of poverty and indigence or actually of low birth.”[29] This was exemplified by Dio Chrysostom in his Thirty-Second Discourse. In his own defense of boasting, Dio says, “My purpose in mentioning such matters was neither to elate you nor to place myself beside those who habitually sing such strains, whether orators or poets. They are clever persons, might Sophists, wonder-workers, but I am quite ordinary and prosaic in my utterance.”[30]

Greco-Roman Conceptions of Boasting and 2 Corinthians 10-13
As has been noted, Paul generally follows Greco-Roman conventions regarding self-praise.[31] In 2 Cor 10:10-16, Paul boasts in order to contest false accusations. Concerning his opponents statements about him, he writes, “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.’ But let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present” (10:10-11). In 2 Cor 11:18, Paul boasts in order to provide a defense to the accusations leveled at him by his opponents saying “since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast too.” In 2 Cor 10:13 (also see 1 Cor 15:10), Paul ascribes his achievements to the work of God. As described above, this kind of thing is closely in accordance with the advice of Plutarch (although Paul ascribes his achievements to the God whom he had encountered on the road to Damascus rather than to the gods of the Roman pantheon or to fate). Paul also clearly seasons his boasting with statements reflecting humility such as in 11:6 when he describes himself as “unskilled in speech.” And so it is evident that, to a significant extent, Paul adheres to the conventions of his day.

Nevertheless, while Paul conforms to the Greco-Roman conventions regarding boasting, he indicates that he does not boast according to the world’s standards—he does not boast kata/ sa,rka. Paul’s opponents are saying that he is unskilled as a rhetorician. This, they are suggesting, is evident by his lack of oratory prowess (10:10, 11:6) and unimpressive physical presence (10:10). These are qualities which are recognized by those with whom Paul is contending as features which characterize strength. For this reason, Paul responds to his critics. On the one hand, he argues that his opponents’ accusations are unwarranted. While his opponents admitted the rhetorical skill inherent in Paul’s writings, they ridiculed his personal presence. But Paul indicates that “what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present” (10:11). This evidences Paul’s understanding that the measure of his approval was not the same standard by which his opponents evaluated him. Rather, “it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends” (10:18). For this reason, Paul boasts in his weakness (11:30). In boasting in his weakness, Paul creates a kind of parody of Greco-Roman notions of the privileged and influential.[32] Since the influential were skilled in rhetoric and oratory, Paul ironically characterizes his own strength as weakness. He was weak by the world’s standards and characterizes himself as such in order to create his polemic. Paul boasts in his so-called weakness knowing that this very thing allowed God to receive the glory rather than him. Thus, he is able to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “He who boasts is to boast in the Lord.”

______________________

Endnotes

[1] Bultmann notes that the word kauca,omai almost always has negative connotations. See Rudolf Bultmann, “kauca,omai,” in TDNT, (ed. Gerhard Kittel; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1965), 646.

[2] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.15-17.

[3] Plutarch, Cicero, 24:1.

[4] Plutarch, Cicero, 24:2.

[5] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.15.

[6] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.21.

[7] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.17.

[8] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.17.

[9] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.17.

[10] Plutarch, On Inoffensive Self-Praise, 539D.

[11] Craig S. Keener, 1 – 2 Corinthians, (New York: Cambridge, 2005), 221.

[12] Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. 3.61.1.

[13] Josephus, Against Apion, 2:135.

[14] Josephus, Against Apion, 2:135.

[15] Josephus, Against Apion, 2:135.

[16] Hans Dieter Betz, “De Laude Ipsius (Moralia 539A – 547F),” Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, Ed. Hans Dieter Betz, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 373.

[17] Betz, 373.

[18] In addition to Plutarch, see Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.21; Demosthenes, De Corona, 299-300; and Dio Chrysostom, Fifth Discourse, 3-9.

[19] Demosthenes, De Falsa Legatione, 174.

[20] Demosthenes, De Corona, 299-300.

[21] Cicero, Letters, 5.12.8.

[22] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.18.

[23] Plutarch, Moralia, 544D.

[24] Duane F. Watson, “Paul and Boasting,” Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Ed. J. Paul Sampley, (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2003), 78.

[25] Craig S. Keener, 1 – 2 Corinthians, (New York: Cambridge, 2005), 222.

[26] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.22.

[27] Plutarch, On Inoffensive Self-Praise, 544E.

[28] Keener, 221.

[29] Plutarch, On Inoffensive Self-Praise, 544B.

[30] Dio Chrysostom, Thirty-Second Discourse, 39.

[31] Duane F. Watson, “Paul and Boasting,” Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Ed. J. Paul Sampley, (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2003), 82; J. P. Samply, “Paul, His Opponents in 2 Corinthians 10-13, and the Rhetorical Handbooks,” in The Social Word of Formative Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. Neusner, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 162-77; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

[32] Keener, 222.

ETS Meeting, November 2010: Piper VS Wright

Actually, I'm sure the dialog will be cordial and doubt any punches will be thrown, but the theme for this years national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society will be the doctrine of justification. The meeting will take place in Atlanta this coming November. John Piper and N. T. Wright are plenary speakers and will sit together for a panel discussion. You can read more about it here.

No One Knows Except the Father

The Hypostatic union (the union of Christ's divine and human natures) helps us to appreciate the person of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 24:36 Jesus says that no one knows the time of His return except the Father. And so the issue arises that if Jesus is God and God is all knowing, then why doesn’t Jesus know the day and hour of His return? The Hypostatic union helps us in this situation. Matthew 24:36 should not be seen as having to be explained in light of the Hypostatic Union. Rather, Matthew 24:36 is an example and/or illustration and/or explanation of the Hypostatic Union. It shows us that Jesus was human. And in the same way that we must have faith as human beings, so too Jesus was called to have faith as a human being. The question: “Why didn’t Christ’s deity tell His humanity?” seems to be a question born out of a failure to recognize the solidarity of Christ’s person. The terms of the question are borderline dependent upon a two-person view of Christ.

God's Covenant with His People Accomplished in Christ

In the beginning, God established a covenant relationship with mankind. “God blessed them; and God said to them, 'be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth' " (Genesis 1:28). This covenant relationship is one that is fourfold. First, the covenant included God’s blessing. On condition of mankind’s faithfulness to the commission, God promised blessing upon him. Second, Adam and Eve were to be fruitful and multiply thereby filling the earth with glorious divine image-bearers. It should be noticed that if people were going to fill the earth, it must be the case that they were not intended to stay in the garden. The area outside of the garden was not as hospitable to life as was the garden itself. This leads to the third facet of the covenant, man was to subdue the earth. In subduing the earth, man was to extend the boundaries of the garden. This would ultimately result in a world in which the entire earth would become a dwelling place for men who would faithfully represent God as bearers of His image. The fourth facet of the covenant was that man was to rule over the earth as a king representing the Lord.

However, Adam failed to fulfill this commision. After Adam's failure, the commission was passed on to Noah, and then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the nation of Israel. Compare and notice the parallels in the following texts:

Adam
Genesis 1:28 - God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Noah
Genesis 9:1, 6-7 - And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea…be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."

Abraham
Genesis 12:2-3 - And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

Genesis 17:2, 6, 8 - "I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly…I will make you exceedingly fruitful…I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan…”

Genesis 22 - Indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

Isaac
Genesis 26:3-4 - Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.

Genesis 26:24 - The LORD appeared to him the same night and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham; Do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you, and multiply your descendants, For the sake of My servant Abraham."

Jacob
Genesis 28:3-4 - "May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. "May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham."

Genesis 35:11-12 - God also said to him, "I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply; A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, And kings shall come forth from you. "The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, and I will give the land to your descendants after you."

The Nation of Israel
Genesis 47:27 - Now Israel lived in the land of Egypt, in Goshen, and they acquired property in it and were fruitful and became very numerous.

Jesus Christ
While Adam and Israel failed to serve God faithfully, the Last Adam Jesus Christ served God faithfully as a Prophet, King, and Priest in the way that Adam and Israel failed to do. Jesus sums up Israel in Himself; He becomes Israel by serving as her representative. Thus, as the last Adam and the true Israel, he becomes the inheritor of the Adamic/Noadic/Abrahamic commission which He also fulfills, thus meriting the promises God gave on the condition of obedience to the commission.

That Jesus sums up Israel in Himself can be seen in Matthew’s gospel. Matthew portrays Jesus as recapitulating the history of Israel. Consider the following:

1. The attempt to kill the Israelite infants, the journey into Egypt and back to the promise land is the same basic pattern of the Israel of old (Matthew 2:13-16; Hosea 11:1; Exodus 1-2).


2. Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 (“out of Egypt I called my Son”) to Jesus. In its original context in Hosea, the identity of “my Son” is clearly the nation of Israel. Thus, by applying the text to Jesus in this way, Matthew identifies Jesus as the true Israel (Matthew 2:15).


3. Jesus encounters demonic opposition and is shown to have authority over these powers as he casts out demons and brings sanity to those who were formerly demon-possessed. This fits the redemptive-historical pattern of Israel conquering the land. Thus, Jesus is subduing and ruling in the way that Adam, Noah, and Israel failed to do (Matthew 8:28-32; Mark 1:34).


4. Jesus is said to come to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). While Israel had been unfaithful, Jesus came to fulfill the commission which had formerly been given to them as the true Israel.


5. Just as Israel was in the wilderness being tested for forty years, so Jesus was tested in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights (compare Deuteronomy 8:2 and Matthew 4). However, while Israel failed to be faithful, Jesus has succeeded.


6. Jesus’ defeat of Satan in the wilderness shows that He was faithful where Adam and Eve failed when they succumbed to the temptation of the devil.


7. Jesus begins to regather the tribes of Israel by calling twelve apostles, who represent a microcosmic, new, true continuation of Israel under their leader Jesus, the one who represents true Israel.
   
8. The curse which resulted from Adam’s unfaithfulness is beginning to be undone in Jesus in the various healings that he performed. These healings were prophesied to occur when Israel would undergo her true end-time restoration to God (Matthew 4:23-25; 8:1-17; 11:4-6; Isaiah 32:3-4; 35:5-6; 42:7, 16).


9. The Sermon on the Mount depicts Jesus as the New Moses, handing down the law of the new-age, which is a true interpretation of Moses’ law which he handed down on Sinai (Matthew 5-7).


10. Jesus takes upon Himself the title “Son of Man,” a title formerly given to representatives of Israel (see Ezekiel). It should also be noted that “The Son of Man is the Son of God” (see Daniel 7). Also, a comparison of the “Son of Man” and “the saints” in Daniel 7 shows that the “Son of Man” in vv. 13-14 is “the saints” in vv. 16-28. Thus, the “Son of Man” is Israel. (or perhaps the Son of Man is an individual who represents Israel). Note that the “saints” will receive the kingdom and will take possession of the kingdom. Similarly, the Son of Man was given a kingdom (Daniel 7).


11. Jesus is given the title Son of God, a title formerly used in reference to Israel (see Psalm 2 and Hosea 11).

Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:15-17: The New Creation Has Dawned!

EXEGETICAL IDEA: The death of Christ has brought about a reality in which those who receive new life gain a spiritual knowledge of Christ and others which demonstrates that they are part of the new creation.

HOMILETICAL IDEA: As those who are in Christ, we have a new way of thinking that evidences our new creational status.

In v. 15, we see that “Christ died for all so that those who live might no longer live for themselves.” Now, at the beginning of v. 15b, the words “so that” indicate purpose—the purpose for which Christ died. What follows the words “so that” in v. 15 is a purpose for which Christ died.

Next note that the purpose for which Christ died in v. 15b relates to “those who live.” It was for the purpose that “those who live” might no longer live for themselves. Now, in Paul, and elsewhere in the New Testament, the concept of life often has more to do with spiritual life than mere physical life. And so the phrase “those who live” should be understood as a reference to “those who have come to have new spiritual life in Christ.” So, v. 15 indicates that Christ died for the purpose those who have come to have new spiritual life in Christ “might no longer live for themselves.” This is what they’re not going to do. Rather, Paul says in v. 15c, they are going to live “for him who died for them and was raised again.” Christ died for the purpose that those who have come to have new spiritual life in Him might no longer live for themselves, but for their Savior, Jesus Christ, who died for them and was raised again.

Now as I dive into v. 16, let’s look at the phrase “according to the flesh.” See in v. 16a where it says that “from now on we know no one according to the flesh” and in v. 16b where is says that “we had known Christ according to the flesh”? A prima facie reading of this might lead one to think that this refers to the fact that Christ’s earthly followers at one time experienced Christ’s physical presence with them on earth. Christ lived and dwelt among his disciples during his earthly ministry. But now, Christ is seated at God’s right hand. And so both Paul and those to whom he is writing no longer experience Jesus’ fleshly presence with them on earth. However, this is not what is in view. Notice that in other instances when Paul uses the phrase “according to the flesh,” that it has negative connotations. In Romans 8:4-5, Paul indicates that "we do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." Here the phrase clearly has negative overtones. Also notice 1 Corinthians 1:26-27, "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." Here the phrase has a similar nuance. Not many who are called to Christian leadership were wise “according to the flesh,” that is, not many of them were wise according to the worldly standards of the old fallen order.

Now, keeping this in mind, let’s look at v. 16. The word “therefore,” indicates that what preceeds in v. 15 (see above) is the cause of that which follows in v. 16. The fact that “from now on we know no one according to the flesh” (v. 16) that we know no one according to the world’s standards, is what has resulted from Christ’s dying so that his followers might live for him (v. 15). Since Christ died for the purpose that those who have come to have new spiritual life might live for him, it has therefore produced the result that Christians no longer evaluate things according to the world’s standards, even though, moving on to v. 16b, we had known Christ "according to the flesh," which is to say, even though we had known Christ according to the standards of the fallen world. Before those who make up Paul's audience were Christians, they did not esteem Christ. They thought about Christ using the corrupt patterns of thinking prevalent in the world. But, Paul says in v. 16c, “we no longer know him in this way.” We have a new way of thinking that is unlike the way of thinking that characterized the old fallen order.

Therefore, Paul concludes in v. 17, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation! The old has passed away, the new has come. This is an allusion to Isaiah 65:17. Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets developed this concept of new creation. The Scriptures teach that we live in a fallen world in which sorrow, sin, suffering, sickness, and death are a reality. Ultimately, the entire created order is under the curse that God brought upon the earth because of the sin of Adam in Eden. But Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets foretold of a new era in which the curse would be brought to an end. Isaiah indicates that the wolf and the lamb will dwell together in peace (Isaiah 11:6). There will be no more death and God’s people would experience a resurrection to eternal life (Dan 12:2). God’s people would be made righteous and a new Davidic King was to rule over them upon a new earth in this new creational order (Isaiah 11, 60:21). God would make his covenant with his people and write his law on their hearts (Ezek 36:26-27).

In the New Testament, you can read about this in Revelation, chapter 21. This will be a time when there is no more death, no more sorrow, no more sickness, no more sin, and no more suffering (Revelation 21:4). God will be our God and we will be his people and we will never cease to praise his name (Revelation 21:3). But here in 2 Corinthians 5:17, Paul says, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come.” In light of this Old Testament eschatological perspective and Paul's direct allusion to Isaiah 65:17, Paul is saying that the promises made by Isaiah and the rest of the prophets have already begun to be fulfilled. Through his life, death, and resurrection, the cosmic event which is the culmination of all of redemptive history has come upon us. The new creation has broken into the present age and we experience it in the fact that God is writing his laws upon our hearts and we have come to acknowledge the Lordship of the coming Davidic King. Ultimately, although we were dead in trespasses and sins, we have now been raised from the dead and given new spiritual life so that we no longer evaluate things according to the standards of the old fallen world order.