The Second Vatican Council
I was raised around Pentecostal Christianity. I became a Christian in this context. Therefore, it is no surprise that the historic creeds and councils of the church were not something that I have thought about all that much. This is not something discussed in those circles all that often. It may be because Pentecostalism is (1) suspicious of any form of creedalism and (2) a bit more democratic as regards church government.
Now I have been thinking about the creeds and councils often. I find myself troubled by some things and I would like to hear the perspective of others on this matter. Basically, which creeds and/or councils do you affirm or reject? Why?
If you are Roman Catholic I assume you have the most consistent understanding of councils since you likely affirm the decisions of the church as far as Vatican II in thr 1960’s. As a Protestant I have a hard time going this far, especially because of the Council of Trent. If you are Orthodox you accept either seven or nine councils and the creeds that were developed at those councils. Why do you, personally, affirms the seven (or nine) ecumenical councils? If seven why do you reject eight and nine?
For most Protestants there is not much developed thought on this matter. Nevertheless, it seems most of us accept the results of the First Council of Nicea and the First Council of Constantinople. There are some who continue to affirm the results of the Council of Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon. I have not heard much talk about the fifth and sixth councils and it actually appears that most Protestants unknowningly reject the results of the seventh council which affirmed the veneration of icons.
There appears to be a few ideological approaches to understanding the councils and creeds:
(1) The church is guided by the Holy Spirit throughout history and therefore all the councils of the church are valid (Catholic).
(2) The church was guided by the Holy Spirit at those early and essential councils. Once these matters were settled the church no longer needed to have these councils, but rather to defend the decisions of these councils (Orthodox).
(3) The earliest church councils mattered but the others do not matter. The reasons for this are as many as the people who affirm this position.
(4) The councils are only correct as they rightly understand biblical truth. Therefore, if we see a council we find unbiblical we can reject it on that basis. In and of themselves the councils have no authority or value.
So what councils and creeds do you affirm and why? Why do you reject the others? Are you Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant? How does this effect your understanding?
Although I have not yet finished my review copy of Imaginary Jesus by fellow Western Seminary student Matt Mikalatos I do want to recommend it. Why? Because from what I have read thus far it is a fantastic mixture of hilarious-to-the-point-of-ridiculous comedy with theological astuteness.
Mikalatos puts himself in a narrative, based here in Portland, OR, where he discovers that the “Jesus” he has befriended is not the real Jesus at all. This leads to a series of Jesuses that must be exposed as false. Inherent in this concept is the desire of the author to show us all that we have a vision of “Jesus” that often does not match who Jesus really is.
Publisher’s Weekly describes it this way:
The Apostle Peter punches Jesus in the face, then chases him out of a coffee shop. And that’s just chapter 0. In this quirky tale the publisher describes as “not-quite-true,” former missionary and comic book store clerk Mikalatos disguises his critique of Christian life in an action-based quest to find the real Jesus. It’s A Christmas Carol meets Oz, but instead of ghosts and tin men, it’s a talking donkey, a motorcycle rider, and Mikalatos himself. The cast of characters drags the reader through the streets of Seattle and ancient Judea to introduce a host of fake Jesuses: Magic 8 Ball Jesus, Harley Jesus, even Liberal Social Services Jesus. They’re constructs of the human mind. “People invent a Jesus for one specific reason and then discard him when they don’t need him anymore,” says one of the Jesuses (the one with an expensive suit). Peter teaches Mikalatos that he must quiet falsehoods and mold a deeper relationship with the living, historical Jesus. Mixing questions of suffering and free will with “a nexus of weirdness,” Mikalatos throws Christian fiction into the world of Comic-Con and Star Wars. His silly quest is startling, contemporary, meaningful, and occasionally exhausting when the reader is puzzled. It begs for a comic book counterpart. (Apr.)
To stay in the loop you can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMikalatos. Also, the book has a Twitter name as well: @ImaginaryJesus. Finally, to learn more about the book, go to the website here.
You can pre-order it on Amazon.com here.
In 2 Corinthians 3 the Apostle Paul is juxtaposing the old and new covenant. He argues that the old covenant, that is represented by letter, death, and condemnation is being superseded by the new covenant represented by the Spirit, life, and righteousness. The old covenant is fading away. The picture presented is Moses from Exodus 34 where Moses comes down from Sinai with the glory of the Lord glowing on his face. The brightness led to the placing of a veil over the head of Moses.
According to the Apostle the veil had another function: to prevent the sons of Israel from realizing the glory was fading. He seems to be depicting Moses as fearful of the possibility that the fading glory would cause the Israelites to lose their awe of him. This principle is transfered to those who currently are still in awe of Moses (read Torah) who do not realize that the glory of Moses (the old covenant) is fading because there is a symbolic veil prevented this realization.
Those who have the Spirit are the ones who not only can see past the veil and therefore can truly understand Moses, but also are like Moses in Ex. 34.34 who removes the veil when he turns to speak to YHWH. Like Moses, the veil is “removed” from those who are Spirit-filled when they turn to see the Spirit.
There has been some who has read this passage in confusion. Since Christ is referred to in v. 14 these people argue for a modalistic reading of this passage by seeing Christ as the antecedent to “the Lord” in vv. 17-18. This reading would equate Jesus with the Spirit. To understand the misreading, in order to present a correct reading, we should examine the passage. I have provided vv. 12-18 below (from the NASB):
12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
As you can see it is possible to misread this text by suggesting that the Apostle sees “the Lord” as referring back to Christ in v. 14. The error of this reading is that Christ in v. 14 is not the antecedent of “the Lord”. The Lord, as previously alluded to above, is God in Ex. 34.34a. This part of the verse reads:
But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would take the veil off until he came out;
In v. 16 “whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is taken away” has Ex. 34.34 in view. Therefore, in v. 17 when the Apostle writes, “the Lord is the Spirit” he is not thinking of Jesus in v. 14 but rather God in Ex. 34.34. Gordon Fee puts it this way,
By “the Lord,” Paul does not intend either God or Christ; he intends the Spirit. That is, he is interpreting the text of Exodus in light of the present argument. The Lord in that text, he is saying, is now to be understood (not literally, but in an analogical way) as referring to the Spirit–not because this is the proper identification of the Lord in the Exodus text, but because in this argument that is the proper way to understand what happens to those who, as Moses, now “turn to the Lord.” The Spirit, who applies the work of Christ to the life of the believer, is the key to the eschatological experience of God’s presence. With the veil removed from the hardened heart, God’s people enter into freedom. [1]
Fee sees the Spirit as functioning in the same way as “the Lord” of Exodus 34 in that when someone/Moses turns to the Spirit/the Lord the veil (literal and symbolic) is removed. Once the veil is removed there is clarity. Only the Holy Spirit does this. [2]
So for those who understand the statement “the Lord is the Spirit” to be a modalistic affirmation that Jesus is the Holy Spirit the serious problem with this reading is that it ignores that the antecedent to the Spirit is found in Ex. 34.34, not v. 14.
____________________________
[1] Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, 311-312.
[2] I disagree with Fee that this is necessarily “analogical”. I do not see why this passage cannot mean that “the Lord” of Exodus 34.34 is the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Fee’s reading is a possibility but not a necessity.
Today I was emailed a link to a website called “Open Thesis”. This seems like it may be a valuable resource. You can upload and search theses and dissertations. It can be accessed here.
A friend wrote me a few days ago with the following question:
What’s the difference between walking in darkness and walking in light with sin [in] 1 John? Confession?
As I read through 1 John this morning it seems that the answer is “yes”, but only in part. In 1.1-3 the author reminds his readers that “we” are the ones who saw Jesus and we proclaimed him to you. I am not sure to whom “we” is a referent but the “we” of this epistle is surely the one who first proclaimed the gospel as well as the one (or ones) who knew Jesus (personally?). As regards identity I will leave that to Johannine scholars.
The message proclaimed (v. 4) is that God is light which means God has no darkness, at all. Therefore, if we are in fellowship with God (this whole passage echoes John 14-17) we must walk in light were the forgiveness of sins is found (vv. 6-7). So yes, one can “walk in the light” while still sinning. Anyone who thinks that sin is a thing of the past “deceives themselves” (v. 8).
Therefore, the author understands confession to be essential. When we confess he forgives us (v. 9). So the problem here is not “sin” but rather not acknowledging sin (v. 10). It seems that there may have been some who actually think they no longer sin, therefore when they did sin their response was denial rather than confession.
The author establishes that he says this so we “won’t sin” but if we do sin we have Jesus as an advocate with the Father because he died on our behalf (2.1-2). As a buffer against possible antinomianism the author reminds his audience that our “knowing” Jesus is evidenced only by keeping his commandments. In other words, someone who continues to sin, does not confess, yet says they know Jesus is a liar because one who knows Jesus attempts to live like him (vv. 3-6).
Now here is where I say this is about more than confession. The author fleshes it out with at least two primary examples: (1) You cannot hate your brother and be in the light (vv. 9-11) and (2) you cannot love the world and the things of the world (vv. 15-16, which likely refers to the world’s system, surely not to the unbelieving “world”). The reason he is calling this people out as people who do not confess and therefore as people who live in darkness is because (1) in a spirit of antichrist they have “gone out” from amongst the true believers and (vv. 18-19) and (2) they have denied Jesus is the Messiah (vv. 21-23).
This explains why in 1.1-3 the author speaks of his group as the ones who seemingly knew Jesus, testified to Jesus, touched Jesus, and so forth. These ones brought the gospel to the readers. The author is now reminding his readers that this sectarian group that has split off from them is in darkness, and they are antichrist, because they are denying Jesus is Messiah. Therefore, remaining in light, loving one another, and not loving the world is all dependent upon acknowledging Jesus as Messiah because it is only by acknowledging this that we can stay in the light and find forgiveness of sins when we confess. If Jesus was not Messiah confession means nothing because we do not have Jesus to mediate us into a relationship with the Father. If we are not in a relationship with the Father we are lost.
I think chapters 3-5 should be read in this context as well. While it is about sinning and confessing it is more about who has access to that forgiveness because they remain in the light by remaining in fellowship with those who confess Jesus as Messiah. I hope this very long answer is a sufficient one and if there are any Johannine scholars that would like to weigh in please do so.
Who says novelty is better than tradition? Not the Chronicle of Higher Education in an article on scholarly publications.
HT: Roger Nam
Ever? Probably not, but at least for now. Listen to Radiolab here.
I gave a presentation on Athanasius of Alexandria today. Afterward my professor followed with a lecture which he ended by asking whether or not the class thought (1) Athanasius thought Eusebius and his fellow Arians were lost and (2) whether or not we thought Eusebius and his followers were lost. While it seems very evident that Athanasius doubted the salvation of the Arians, especially since he understood their concept of Christ as created being as necessitating idolatry, it was not as evident among my peers and I.
To make matters a bit more complex the question was asked if there was a differance between Eusebius and other Arian teachers and, for example, newly converted Arian Christians among the Goths who did not know about the controversies taking place amongst the Nicene and Arian parties. Did their ignorance excuse heresy?
Equally, if heresy prevents salvation how does this fit into the concept of salvation by grace through faith in Christ? How much “knowledge” does someone have to obtain for their faith to be in the real Christ and therefore legitimate.
For those who may think this is a battle of later, institionalized Christianity do remember that the Apostle Paul, Jude, and the author of 1 John all spend time addressing the seemingly salvific connotations of orthodoxy. With that being said I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts since we will be resuming this discussion in two weeks when our class regathers.
In the local Portland Monthly the infamous atheist Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Marilyn Sewell. I found Hitchens’ response to the following question by Sewell to be dead accurate.
The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from Scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make a distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
Touche! It appears that Christopher Hitchens understands the basics of Christianity better than many self proclaimed Christians. To read the rest of the article go here.
HT: Scot McKnight
See further: “Christopher Hitchens Gets It Exactly Right“
We here at Near Emmaus: Christ and Text came as close to being ranked as a Top 50 biblioblog as we have ever been. Jeremy Thompson posted the rankings today and we arrived at #58. I think we may move into the Top 50 soon enough.
Congratulations to Joel Watts who was ranked #1 in this post-Jim West era.
At the very beginning of discourse I of Against the Arians the great Athanasius answers those who argued that the Arians were still Christians. I think his response is brilliant, witty, and pithy. He writes the following,
For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas a Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and to say that they asked Barrabas instead of the Saviour did no evil, and to recommend Hymenaeus and Alexander as right-hand men, as if the Apostle slandered them. (I.2)
It doesn’t get more straightforward that that. Athanasius’ answer regarding whether or not Arius and his followers are still Christians despite being heretical is sarcastically, “Yes, if Caiaphas who had Christ killed is a Christian, if Judas is still an apostle, if choosing Barrabas was not an insult to Christ, and if the Apostle Paul wrongly framed those who persecuted him, sure, then he is a Christian.” I wonder if sometimes our desire to be “fair” and “objective” prevents us from telling the truth? Sometimes I wish I was more like Athanasius.
Tony Jones is scheduled to present a paper at the upcoming meeting of the Society of Pentecostal Studies. In preparation he is asking “So, what does the emerging church have to learn from Pentecostalism, and what does Pentecostalism has to learn from the emerging church?” As one who may be considered Pentecostal (some Pentecostals may reject this statement), as well as one who at one point was very interested in the development of the emerging church, I think I may have a few thoughts on this matter.
Since I think I have more to say to what the emerging church can learn from Pentecostalism I will limit my contribution to that side of the discussion. There are several points I will attempt to make here that I hope may be found helpful.
(1) Do not allow distinctive characteristics to move you toward anti-catholicity. One of the serious problems with the Pentecostal movement is that she has often become so concerned with her distinctive characteristics, like glossolalia and freedom of expression in worship, that it has made her turn a cold shoulder to identifying with other Christians. This is partially to blame on the fact that the early years of the Pentecostal movement were scarred by partial persecution from other Christians. Nevertheless, our response has left us bankrupt of tradition at times as well as antagonistic to a broader Christianity that for the most part would likely be more welcoming to some of our distinctive characteristics or at least to fellowship in spite of those characteristics.
(2) Do maintain essential, important, reforming characteristics. As the old adage goes, “The most segregated time of the week in the United States is Sunday morning.” At Azusa Street this was not so. Christians gathers in the name of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This was our identity. As Pentecostalism aged she forgot about these humble, cross-cultural beginnings and she slowly made racial reconciliation a non-priority. Sadly, Pentecostalism is as racially divided in many places as the rest of the church.
Equally, we noticed that God uses women and that there is “neither male or female” in Christ. Yet over time we bought into older, decontextualized readings of the Scriptures that limited female involvement. In response, some of our independent churches have pushed too hard for female equality which has led to some women pastors who have no doctrinal backbone at all (much like what is seen in some mainstream churches). We should have been more intentional regarding developing our understanding of women in the church rather than reacting to Protestant, Reformed readings of various passages.
The emerging church has made some moves that Pentecostalism made a century before the emerging church was coming into fruition. It is my hopes that the emerging church, if it is not a fad (which is yet to be seen), will at least contribute to our progress in the areas that Pentecostalism intended to contribute at her beginning.
(3) Do not forsake solid doctrine. This is my greatest fear for the emerging church. She seems to be anti-doctrinal. Everyone has the right, at times, to reconsider his/her beliefs. I don’t necessarily agree with Catholic and Orthodox theologians who argue that the Christian must simply adopt what was handed down because the reality of the matter is that in some cases not everything handed down is true or at least relevant anymore. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone has the right to deconstruct the content of the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Constantinopolitan Creed. If the emerging church wants to rethink eschatology or ethics, fine. Let what is essential about Christianity remain free from prodding or the heresy tag be inevitable.
As for Pentecostals please consider Gordon Fee. He is doctrinally sound, faithful to the Scripture, dedicated to exegesis and accurate hermeneutics, yet distinctive as a Pentecostal. Our greatest fault as Pentecostals is that we marginalize our most brilliant, biblically faithful theologians whenever they question the nature of our distinctive characteristics (e.g. speaking in tongues, the nature of the gifts in corporate worship).
It would be wonderful to see someone incorporate some emerging church aspects with biblical exegetical faithfulness. At this point I cannot think of that person. Those like Driscoll and Kimball who would be named (or even Andrew Jones) seem to have move away or are moving away from the emerging church label. This could be bad for the movement. If this happens you become simply another form of liberal Protestantism (which is fine, but all this means is that your movement was incorporated into an already existing form of Christianity, once again spelling out the demise of the ‘emerging church’ as something distinctive).
(4) Do continue to push the social side of the gospel (without resurrecting the ’social gospel’ movement). Pentecostalism began on the other side of the tracks. We have historically been a movement that cared for the poor. Sadly, it seems that once we matured there are some who became afraid of social action associating it with the ’social gospel movement’. I find this disappointing.
The gospel is the be holistically embodied which includes word and deed. So I applaud the emerging church for speaking about social issues (although at times I am not sure about the direction many have taken because it seems to be simply an anti-Dobson, anti-Robertson, anti-Falwell approach). I just hope that (a) it doesn’t become solely a social gospel movement or (b) ditches that characteristic.
(5) Listen to your critics because it provides balance. Sometimes I wish Pentecostalism would have ignored her critics (racial integration, women in ministry) but other times I wish there would have been more humble listening (sacraments, maintaining order in worship, the importance of tradition). I hope the emerging church will listen to her critics because there are some important things that need to be heard. If the emerging church is to avoid becoming radical for the sake of being radical or irrelevant for the sake of simply become something that already exist (again, I see it moving toward mainline Protestantism, at least as regards capital “E” Emergent) she need to listen to other Christians. Yes, even John Piper and D.A. Carson care about the church which is why I think they (sometimes rightly) attack the emerging church. If you can at least listen to the critiques you may avoid some of the mistakes that Pentecostalism made over the years.
All that being said I am a “Pentecostal” who attends a Baptist church (Imago Dei here in Portland, which is not an emerging church) as well as a non-denomination, yet characteristically Baptist, seminary. As much as I love the Pentecostal movement some of the very problems that I have alluded to here (as well as others like anti-educationalism) have led me to step away for the time being. So maybe I am disqualified to speak to this subject. Nevertheless, I thought I would toss my few cents into the pond. Maybe someone will find value in what was said.
It is available here.
In a recent online discussion with several people I know (and some that I did not know) the subject of fellowship between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals was being discussed. A former professor of mine, who I think is still part of the Oneness sect, said that fellowship could occur when “…both groups decide to limit themselves to biblical language and avoid the use of extrabiblical terminology”. JohnDave Medina, who co-blogs here, rightly pointed out that this would allow Arians (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses) into fellowship as well and I added that this destroys any possibility of doing Christian theology at all. Rather, it regulates us to Scripture memorization and quotation that ends in proof texting as best.
Although I would not say that I am a big fan of John Piper I noted a few things that he said in a lecture on Athanasius that I felt were relevant. He said, “The truth of biblical language must be vigorously defended with non-biblical language.” Then he gave his reason: “You can use Bible language to say things that are false to the Bible”. I think Piper is correct.
It is not that heretical or heterodoxical sects cannot quote the Scriptures. In fact, it is the opposite. Usually it is the goal of such groups to “let the Scriptures speak for themselves” which actually means “we have a predisposed understanding of what this passage means and if we actually think critically about it we would realize our predisposition doesn’t account for what the Scriptures say at all”. Equally, it is forgotten by these people that part of allowing the Scriptures to speak is to actually clarify what the Scriptures mean.
For Athanasius he fought the Arians over a definition of Christ’s relationship to the Father that was only one letter different from his opponents. For Athanasius and the Nicene party Christ was homoousias (of one substance) while for the Arians it was homoi0usias (of a similar substance). That extra iota made the differance between whether or not Jesus was one with God or Jesus was the first created being of God.
If Athanasius would have not used an extrabiblical term like homoousia we may all be Arians today. Let us not forget that the Scriptures were meant to be read, interpreted, and understood, not just quoted. Extra-biblical language is essential to Christian theology. Without it we are left to a church without teachers and text without power.
As I prepare for a presentation that I am giving on the great Athanasius of Alexandria I thought I’d pass along a few online resources for whoever may travel this path later:
(1) Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Athanasius, Select Works and Letters.
(2) Athanasius Timeline (created by Aaron West)
(3) Catholic Encyclopedia: Athanasius
(4) ChristianHistory.net: Athanasius
(5) Wikipedia.com: Athanasius of Alexandria
(6) “Athanasius and the Deity of Christ” lectures by Nick Needham: lecture one here; lecture two here.
(7) “The Life and Ministry of Athanasius” lecture by John Piper here.
I was planning to study theological German this summer at Multnomah Seminary but due to scheduling this will not be an option. Therefore, unlike JohnDave Medina who has been doing German it appears that I will be doing theological French here at Western Seminary instead.
So here is my question: What resources do you recommend for a beginning French student who also will be working on theological French in a few months. To clarify, do you know of a good beginners French grammer that would lead well into studying theological French?
As regards online resources the only site I know is the seemingly discontinued Theological French blog. If there is another one available please let me know.
I guess this is timely because it appears that I will be visiting Paris for a few days this summer so at least I won’t be too embarrassed by my inability to communicate as one with the last name ‘LePort’.
This is my second semester for theological German and I am quite lost many times. So, besides actually reading German (who wants to do that when one could just look up ways to learn how to read it?), I decided to search for some extra resources that would help me get up to speed—at least for decently translating a personal selection this term.
For the actual class, we began with J.D. Manton, Introduction to Theological German (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1971). The strength of this book is that one immediately gets into translation work virtually from the beginning. The vocabulary each section is theological, manageable, and relates directly to the exercises—no hoops to jump through here. Although there are twenty lessons, one should have enough grammar to translate more modern theological German works after Lesson Ten. A dictionary should still be needed, but Manton’s list of vocabulary in the back seems generally adequate.
The problem with Manton’s book is that it is horrible for a reference grammar: it is difficult to find certain grammatical concepts because: 1) there is no table of contents, 2) the lessons are numbered only and do not have a description, and 3) certain grammatical surprises that one encounters in the exercises are noted and do not seem to be discussed in the grammar again. To its credit, Intro to Theological German has a grammar index. For a reference grammar, we have gone with Paul G. Graves and Henry Strutz, Master the Basics: German, 2nd ed., Barron’s Educational Series (Hauppage, NY: Barron’s, 1995). Although it is more of a modern German grammar, it has thus far served its purpose well for me.
Here are the extra resources I have found so far:
Getting (Theological) German by T. Michael W. Halcomb. This is an interactive site that covers the various aspects of theological German grammar, among other things.
Theological German: Advice and Resources by Andy Rowell, a ThD student. A site with many great resources (for instance, helps on choosing a dictionary) and links.
Theological German/Theologisches Deutsch by Mark. A blog dedicated to theological German. The above link redirects to grammar, but there is a host of other resources on this blog. It is in both German and English (but seems to be written more in German, which is great for practicing German or keeping it fresh). I chose my dictionary (the Concise Oxford Duden) based on this site (after I told him about my purchase, my German professor Kent Yinger affirmed my choice with good words about Duden dictionaries).
Best wishes to all current and aspiring theological German students out there. Oh, and if anyone’s wondering, I’m working on Rudolf Bultmann’s Theologie des Neuen Testaments (no surprise).
For a class of mine this term I had the opportunity to choose what I would be reading. One choice was the full text of God’s Empowering Presence by Gordon Fee. I know it is a long book but I think it is doable. Sadly, it does not appear that Fee himself expected any of his readers to engage in such a task. As early as page eleven he writes, “I have no illusions that anyone will read the book through in its entirety.” Oops?
Well, I guess I’d better exceed Fee’s expectations if I am going to make the grade! Is there anyone out there who has accomplished this task? I need a message of hope!
Last semester I wrote a paper Jesus as the New Moses in Matthew. One of the resources that came up during my search was James McGrath’s John’s Apologetic Christology. Since it had more to do with Jesus and Moses in John, I didn’t pay much attention to it.
As I was looking at potential topics for the MA thesis, I put down Johannine Christology as one. Now that Johannine Christology has made it to the final round, I decided to do some reading on it. The potential advisor I sought for this topic pointed me to agent Christology in John. I found that McGrath has a great chapter on that titled “God’s equal or God’s agent,” taken from John 5.
As I have always had an interest in John’s prologue, I decided to read McGrath on the prologue in the section dealing with Jesus and Moses. This quote I found particularly interesting:
John appears to have in mind here in the prologue the Exodus/Sinai traditions in the Jewish Scriptures. Just as in John 3 it is denied that Moses ascended, so here it is denied that Moses actually saw God: Moses, it is implied, saw the Logos, the one who alone can see God.1
McGrath there points out from this text something I was completely oblivious to, even though I’ve heard and read plenty of times that Moses did not actually see God. The idea that it was the Logos that interacted with Moses accords well with what the early Christian writer Justin Martyr wrote:
The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.2
McGrath continues:
The difference between Jesus and Moses is thus one of kind rather than degree: the Word spoke to Moses, but became Jesus. Or to paraphrase Johannine terminology, the Word gave revelation through Moses, but appeared on the scene of human history as the human being Jesus. John is thus using traditional Wisdom categories, but has identified Jesus and Wisdom more fully and completely than any other before him, thus altering in subtle but extremely important ways his understanding of Jesus.3
Jesus is superior to Moses because Jesus is God’s Wisdom. This Wisdom is personified as an attribute of God but yet distinct from God (Proverbs 8). It seems that for John, the Logos was one that was distinct from God but also God. With these considerations, it is hard to see how the creeds and the doctrine of the Trinity could not be derived from Scripture.
______
1 James F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 156.[Back]
2 Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 63, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxiii.html (accessed January 24, 2010).[Back]
Since I have entered seminary, my interests have broadened so much. Prior to seminary, I was interested mainly in a blend of biblical studies and theology; after four semesters of seminary, I have come to love church history—especially the church fathers, but even the Reformers. I chose the Integrated Studies concentration with the intent to bring balance to my education—and balance it has brought. Now that I am in the stage of preparing to research and write a thesis (in which one’s aim is to gain mastery of the scholarly discussion a narrowly-defined topic), I find myself in a dilemma that is somewhat a result of this balance: it has become harder to decide which area to focus on.
In a previous post, I wrote that because I am in the Integrated Studies concentration my hope was to have my thesis be a combination of biblical studies, and church history and theology. As I have given this idea some thought and prayer, I have decided against it: for one, it would be too much for me to delve into something like Augustine’s view of Paul’s predestination—that would necessitate me having to know about both Augustine’s and Paul’s predestination. Now, in the end, that probably wouldn’t be a bad thing. But realistically there is so much to read and so little time to read everything out there.
So I have narrowed down both tracks to one topic each: Tertuallian’s Trinitarian theology (church history and theology) and Johannine Christology (biblical studies). As I spend the next day or so doing some reading and spending time in prayer, I should come to a conclusion.
