"Your Body is a Temple"

“Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” (1 Corinthians 6:19)

One of the problems with English translations of this verse is that our language does not differentiate the singular “your” from the plural “your”.

In the Greek of this verse the “your” is plural (ὑμῶν) while “body” (σῶμα) is singular. Paul is here speaking into a group of individuals about their communal body and not to their individual bodies. The same is true in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

In no place does Paul (or any other New Testament writer) describe an individual Christian’s body as being a temple. If he had, he would have written “Your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit”.

The only time an individual is referred to as a temple is Jesus whose body is a temple (John 2:19-21; Revelation 21:22). The Church (universal) is also referred to as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:12; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). Therefore, the Church (an aggregate of individual believers) = the body of Christ = a temple of the Holy Spirit.

The Parables of the Talents/Minas - Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27

Most people have long supposed that Biblical parables that speak of a king going away and coming back again are to be read without question as meaning Jesus going away (in death, resurrection, and exaltation), leaving the Church with spiritual gifts and tasks to perform, and then coming back a long time later to see how they’ve been getting on.

In truth, these parables, in their first century context, were about Yahweh going away at the time of the Exile, having left the Jews with the Torah and the vocation to be the light of the world, and Yahweh now returning.

Jesus saw the coming of Yahweh back to Zion as an event so intimately bound up in his own ministry and its immediately climax that he could speak of the one in terms of the other. 

The Resurrected Body

One of the oddities of the Resurrection of the Jesus was the body that Jesus now had.

It was indeed a physical body that could be touched (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39) and could touch things (Luke 24:30; John 21:13). He could breathe (John 20:22) and he could eat (Luke 24:41-43; John 21:12-15). It was a physical body in every sense that one can imagine. Indeed, it was the very same body that Jesus had before he was resurrected. We know this from the fact that it had the scars of the crucifixion (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 27).

Yet, while it was the same body, it was also a changed body. The people who knew him best did not always recognize him at first (Luke 24:15-31; John 20:4). The body was able to appear and disappear (Luke 24:31, 36; John 20:19, 26).

This was not simply a resuscitated corpse (John 11:44) but a complete retranslation of the same body in a new context. This is something that had never happened before and has yet to happen again.

Interestingly enough, in the pre-modern world, particularly among the Greco-Romans, the idea of disembodied ghosts was not an unbelievable idea. However, the concept of a resurrected physical body was considered complete nonsense by those  within the Greek worldview (Acts 17:18, 32). The idea that humans are holistic beings in which body and spirit are indivisible is a Hebrew concept. The body does not have a soul; the body is a soul (נֶפֶשׁ nephesh; ψυχή psyche).

The importance of this for Christians is that while everyone dies and both body and spirit afre destroyed and "sleep" in the earth, one day all believers will be resurrected (both body and spirit) into glorified bodies like Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:52; 2 Corinthians 3:18). This is why Jesus is referred to as the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23).

Three Reasons for the Resurrection

1)      Jesus was vindicated. When God raised Jesus from the dead, it proved that God supported Jesus’ message and claims. It proved Jesus’ claims to be a prophet of God and the Messiah. It proved his claims of the coming of the Kingdom of God, the return of God to Zion, and the imminent judgment of Israel by God via destruction by Rome.

2)      Death and Evil were defeated. The Resurrection proved that evil and death could do their worst on Jesus and his followers but that God would ultimately prevail. Death cannot hold Jesus.

3)      New Creation inaugurated. The Resurrection of Jesus was evidence that God was fulfilling his promise to save the world and resurrect his followers into unperishable bodies. Jesus was the “first fruits” of that promise.

Three Arguments for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus

1)      Hundreds of people were witnesses to the resurrection, many of them known historical personages, writing their accounts contemporaneously.

2)      Saul of Tarsus was a well-known zealot and persecutor of the followers of Jesus, who denied the resurrection and used violence in an attempt to squash the nascent Christian movement. His experience of seeing the resurrected Jesus on his journey to Damascus was the cause of this immediate conversion to Christianity. This historical episode is well-founded and by various sources, including three by Saul (now Paul) himself.

3)      The third argument is based on the cultural expectation of the Messiah to which Jesus made his claim and his followers agreed. For a century prior to Jesus and a century following, many individuals made claims to be the Messiah. The three qualifications of a Messiah were as follows: sit on the throne of David, rebuild the Temple, and defeat Israel’s enemies. Yet, every single one of them died by some form or another, usually by Rome, disproving to everyone, particularly, their followers, that they were not the Messiah. A dead Messiah was a failed Messiah. It would be something of a historical anomaly for people to say, “You know that guy who was killed by the Romans … maybe he was the Messiah.” That doesn’t make historic sense. In Jesus case, there had to have been something that superseded the basic disqualification of being put to death by Rome.

Here are Four Primary Theological Reasons Why Jesus Was Crucified.

1)      Jesus as prophet was performing a prophetic act predicting the destruction of Israel by Rome if Israel did not repent its current mode of being the people of God.

2)      God saw Jesus sinless and selfless obedience unto death as a pleasing act of love and devotion. Therefore, endorsing both his message, his means, and his claim to be the Messiah, God raised Jesus from the dead.

3)      In an act of grace, God chose to resurrect all who repent and follow Jesus, declaring that he would identify all such people with the sinless, self-less, obedient live and death of Jesus.

4)      Jesus intended his followers to use his life, message, and obedient death as an example of what true discipleship and true humanity is like.

Sin vs. Sin-Offering: A Note on 2 Corinthians 5:21

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Something worth noting about this verse. In some of your Bibles you might see a footnote attached to the second use of “sin” in this verse. This is because the the traditional interpretation of the second use of “sin” (harmatia) had usually been translated as “sin”, but now is now more frequently translated as “sin-offering”.

The Greek word harmartia (ἁμαρτία) is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) for the Hebrew word chatta'ath (חַטָּאָת) which can be translated as both “sin” and “sin-offering”. The ancient Israelites used chatta'ath for both words. Only context makes the distinction.

A good example of this is found in Leviticus 4:3. “If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering (chatta'ath) for the sin (chatta'ath) he has committed.”

Again, context is the only way to discern whether the writer is referring to sin or sin-offering.

With regards to 2 Corinthians 5:21, the context suggests that “sin-offering” would be a better translation/interpretation of harmatia.

First, there are a several passages in the Bible that refer to Christ in sacrificial/offering terms

(e.g., Rom. 8:3; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 10:12).

Second, it seems unlikely that anyone, let alone Jesus, could become sin. Sin is something one commits. Even the word “sinful” refers to the amount of sin one commits, not that one has sin abounding in them. One commits adultery; one is not adultery itself. One commits thievery; one is not thievery itself. Jesus never sinned so he is not sinful, let alone sin itself.

It seems more likely that Paul intended his audience to understand Jesus in this verse as a sin-offering. Jesus offered himself to God as a sin-less representative of Man willing to sacrifice himself for others.

Jesus' Prophecy of the Temple

Let’s dig into Jesus’ “Cleansing of the Temple”. During his final week before crucifixion in Jerusalem, Jesus went to the Temple, the place where God resides (the Shekhinah), and began overturning the money-changing tables. He then said, “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46)

Jesus’ words were actually quotes from two Old Testament prophecies. The first is from Isaiah 56:7.

“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.”

This verse is from a prophetic oracle about God bringing together Gentiles, foreigners, eunuchs, and outcasts from all the world, from all nations, to worship him, not excluding anyone because of their ethnicity or station in life.

The second is from Jeremiah 7:11.

“Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, says the Lord.”

If you read the entire prophetic oracle of Jeremiah 7, you learn that it’s about God preparing to bring down judgment upon the whole of Judah for its sins against God and man. This prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE.

Put together with his actions to temporarily halt the legitimate business of the Temple, it seems that Jesus’ intention was to enact a prophetic oracle announcing God’s imminent judgment upon the Temple itself and Israel in general. This prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE.

Eli, Elijah, and Confusion over the Crucifixion

While on the cross, Jesus was heard to cry out, "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34)

Many of those who hear Jesus say this mistakenly believe that he is crying out for Elijah (Eli – Elijah). This source of linguistic confusion is why the gospels record what Jesus says in the original Aramaic before giving the Greek translation.

The reason that the gospel writers include this anecdote of confusion in the crucifixion narrative is to highlight the real confusion that is taking place. Throughout this whole episode, everyone is completely misunderstanding what is happening to Jesus.

Jesus has been identifying himself as a prophet from God and proclaiming a specific prophecy about the immanence of the Kingdom of God and approaching judgment. Now that he has been arrested and crucified it looks like God has abandoned him and he is being punished. The comments by people in Matthew 27, Mark 15, and Luke 23 indicate that this is the general opinion.

And at first appearance, Jesus’ cry of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34) seems to indicate. In fact, Jesus is quoting the first line of Psalm 22. This particular psalm is about a man who is under tremendous suffering at it looks like God has completely abandoned him (vv. 1-23). However, in verse 24, the poem takes a dramatic turn:

“For he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.”

The whole point of this psalm is that even though it looks like God has abandoned/punished the person afflicted, the truth is actually the complete opposite. God has not forsaken the sufferer.

So when Jesus alludes to Psalm 22, he is indicating that even though it looks as if God is abandoning/punishing Jesus, the truth is that God is there with him in his suffering and will vindicate the afflicted.

“Let his blood be on us and our children.”

In Matthew 27:24-25, when Pilate tells the crowd calling for Jesus’ crucifixion that “this man’s blood … is your responsibility,” the people answer, “Let his blood be on us and our children.”

Some people throughout history have used this verse as an excuse to legitimize their anti-Semitism. Their thinking here is that this verse teaches that this small crowd of Jews in Jerusalem 2000 years ago was accepting responsibility (i.e., blame) for the death of Christ in the name of all Jews everywhere for two millennia and onward.

The idea is nonsense but some people unfamiliar with Christianity and the Bible still believe that’s what these verses are trying to convey. I’m sure the very Jewish gospel writer, Matthew, would be surprised to learn of this interpretation.

I think a better interpretation is that Matthew the irony of the situation. While this small group of Jews who have been persuaded by the chief priests and elders to call for Jesus’ death is taking personal responsibility for that death, they are unwittingly calling for the cleansing, sacrificial blood of Christ to be upon them (1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 2:13; Heb. 9:14, 10:19; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5, 7:14, 12:11).

What they intended as a curse, God turned it into a blessing.

"Judge not ..."

Sometimes when one points out that a particular behavior is contrary to God's will, others will condemn that pronouncement by citing the first part of  Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7, saying, "Judge not".

The people in this context that cite this statement interpret it to mean that one must never judge another person's behavior to be wrong. I am under no delusion that anyone who does so is actually attempting to offer Scriptural wisdom  - they simply don't like being told that a particular behavior is wrong and they are looking for the easiest way to deflect their guilt.

Obviously, we make judgments about behavior every day. Judges and juries are supposed to do it. Jesus in John 7:24 is quoted as saying, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

Indeed, Telling someone that it is wrong to judge is actually judging someone and their behavior. Therefore, under the "never-tell-anyone-they-are wrong" interpretation, it is wrong to tell someone to "judge not". It's hypocrisy.

Again, I know that no one who cites "judge not" in the above manner is really concerned with the meaning of Jesus' teaching and the inner-contradictions of their misinterpretations - they just don't like the guilt of being told they're wrong.

Let's actually look at "judge not" in its context.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matt7:1-5).

As the context makes perfectly clear, the purpose of pointing out the sin in someone's life is to help that person remove it. It's not simply the proclamation of error but the call to turn towards a more authentic way of living. For someone to be upset that someone is attempting to guide them towards the removal of serious error in their life is like going to a doctor with breathing problems and becoming angry when he suggests the cure.

"Mr. Smith, you need to stop smoking. It's damaging your health." "'Judge not lest ye be judged!'" "Uh, but I don't smoke." "'Physician, heal thyself!'" "Actually, I'm a general prac-" "'"Shut the heck up," thus sayeth the Lord!'"

Jesus is saying that one cannot help remove the sin from someone's life if they are engaging in that sin as well. You can't help someone with their drunkenness if you are a drunk. You can't help someone with their lying if you are a liar. You can't help someone with their immorality if you also engage in immorality. You can't help someone with their hypocritical use of "judge not" if you are hypocritically using "judge not."

Resurrection, Religion, and the Fear of Death

I've often hear people espouse the theory that humanity created religion in order to deal with the concept of death. This theory goes that people feared the finality of death and conjured up the idea of an afterlife in order to avoid confronting reality. This theory is probably not without some merit. I am sure there are plenty of people in this world who embrace religion merely to escape this fear.

Based upon their burial practices, there is some evidence that the Neanderthals may have believed in an afterlife. Certainly, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Canaanite religions believed in a spiritual place after death.

Interestingly enough, the Hebrews and ancient Israelites actually did not believe in an afterlife until after the time of the Babylonian Exile (539 BCE). Up until this later era, general Israelite conceptions of death held that the body was created from dust and naturally returned to dust. The body was considered holistic, not being divided into body and spirit but as a unified materialistic substance. A body didn't have a soul (nephesh); a body was a soul. Therefore, the body, created by God originally from nothing, returned to nothing at death. There was no spirit world to which the immortal body was delivered. Sheol was the representation of the grave, a final resting place for all people in dust.

It is not until after the Exile that a resurrection from the dead began to appear in common Jewish religion. It seems that the Jews began to read Exilic Bible passages about Yahweh's promise to reform the nation of Israel from exile (Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37) as a promise of resurrection of the body from death. This was later picked up by Daniel and 2 Maccabees. By the time of Jesus, the vast majority of Jews believed in a resurrection of the dead.

Resurrection of the dead, of course, is vastly different from other religious ideas of an afterlife. Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans believed that the body died and the spirit continued on in some immaterial, spiritual plane of existence. The Greeks in particular believed that the spirit was an immortal form that existed prior to bodily life and continued after bodily death. The spirit was said to be indestructible and thus continued on. This is a far cry from the idea of the creator god, Yahweh, who brings everything into existence out of nothing. The Jews believed that Yahweh would one day bring back to life all of the materials that made up a person, recreating out of dust the body and spirit of man. This seems to have been a unique view among the ancient world. The Greco-Roman worldview found the idea of a resurrection of the body to be foolish, both religiously and philosophically.

Naturally, the concept of the resurrection of the dead remained a matter of faith and theory for the first several centuries of its existence. It wasn't until around the year 30 CE with the resurrection of Jesus that it was proved that, yes, resurrection of the dead was the creator god's intended purpose for humanity.

So the ancient worshippers of Yahweh (the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) did not embrace religion in order to deal with any fear of death in hopes of an afterlife. In terms of mortality, their adherence to a monotheistic, creator god, one who creates out of nothing, was of almost stoic acceptance to a supreme being whose authority to create and utterly destroy was strictly a divine prerogative.

Thankfully, that prerogative is to recreate and offer the resurrection of the body to those willing to accept it.

A Fuller Expression of the Gospel

I was reading today a few articles on N.T. Wright and his view of narrative theology. I came across one article that took him to task for a less than clear conception of penal substitutionary atonement theology. I sympathize with the articles frustration over the ambiguity of Wright's position, though it is obvious that we come down on separate sides when it comes to the validity of the doctrine. Nevertheless, what really struck me about the article was the author's dissatisfaction with Wright's book "Simply Christian" in that it did not explain the basic Gospel -- "Christ died for our sins."

This is a bit of a bugaboo for me. One of my criticisms of most conception of the Gospel message, particularly the more popular understandings, is that they are extremely narrow formulations, completely devoid of the narrative thrust of the Bible. In effect, to say the basic Gospel is "Christ died for our sins" is like saying that WWII was about liberating Poland from Nazi Germany. The saying captures the part but not the whole.

Granted, a full expression of the Gospel (like the one I humbly suggest below) does not fit on a bumper sticker or key ring. If one was to simply reduce the Gospel to its purest essence it would be the following: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God" (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14). This was the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed and would have been readily understood by his Jewish contemporaries.  

However, outside of first century Palestine, we, like the gentiles of the era, depend upon the apostles to flesh out the meaning of this good news and explain it as it related to the story of Israel.

Therefore, the following should be understood: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14), that God has broken definitively into history and the world (Luke 4:18) with power (1Th 1:5) and grace (Acts 20:24; Eph 1:13) in the person and work of Jesus the Christ (1Th 3:2; 2Th 1:8; Gal 1:7; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; Rom 1:9; Phl 1:27), who is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23), bringing Justice (Rom 2:16), Peace (Eph 6:15), and Healing (Matt 4:23; 9:35) to the World and the offer of Salvation (Rom 1:16) for Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7) to all peoples, fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating New Creation (Gal 6:15) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10)."

I think this definition offers a far fuller and more accurate expression of the Gospel and how it was encapsulated by Jesus' original audience.

"Sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21

I've been doing a study on 2 Corinthians 5:21, specifically about the odd saying that "God made him who had no sin [i.e. Jesus] to be sin for us". This verse has traditionally been interpreted to mean that by some mystical transference God turned Jesus into sin during the crucifixion in order to be substitutionally punished for the sins of humanity. However, I had noticed that several of the better, scholarly translations of the New Testament add a footnote to the second occurrence of "sin" (hamartia) in verse 21, indicating that it can be translated as "sin-offering".

The reason for this is that the Old Testament uses the same word (chatta'ath) for both "sin" and "sin-offering". Only contexts determines the usage.

Therefore, we get a translation of Leviticus 4:3: "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a 'sin offering' [chatta'ath] for the 'sin' [chatta'ath] he has committed."

Now when the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the translators rendered chatta'ath as hamartia.

With this in mind, the  atonement context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests that Paul intended the second use of hamartia to be understood as "sin-offering" instead of "sin".

It makes more sense to think of God considering the sin-less Jesus an offering for sin than actually somehow turning him into sin.

Reasons for the Crucifixion of Jesus

For those unfamiliar with Christianity or those only culturally tied to it as a religion, there can be some confusion and uncertainty about the meaning and purpose of Jesus' crucifixion as it pertains to the Christian Faith. I'd like to offer four primary reasons for the death of Jesus, in brief:

Reason 1: Servant - In this, Jesus obeyed God and followed the divine will perfectly throughout his life even to the point of death.  Jesus was the perfect human being as God always intended, representative of both God and Man, selflessly denying himself for the love of his fellow man and God, giving himself in obedience to God, even into death, for the purposes of God's saving work. Here, the grace of God is shown in that for whoever trusts God and follows Jesus, God recognizes in them the same selfless obedience that God sees in Jesus.

Reason 2: Moral-Theological Example - Jesus' obedience and selflessness is the ultimate expectation that God has for humanity, both as individuals and as a community. If Jesus is the ultimate human and a sign-post pointing forwards to God's consummation of creation, disciples of Jesus are called to follow his example in their daily lives, even to the point of self-sacrificial death.

Reason 3: Defeat of Evil - The resurrection that followed Jesus death from crucifixion ultimately shows that evil and all the dark forces that the world can muster can never have the final victory over Jesus and his followers. If killing is the ultimate act that one can do to another, if death is the worse destruction that evil can do, then the fact that Jesus overcame death by crucifixion and was resurrected into a glorified body means that evil can do its worse and not have victory over good. Jesus defeated both evil and death and all those who follow Christ participate in that victory. This is also the reason why there cannot be any justice in the world without a resurrection of the body from death.

Reason 4: Enacted Parable - This is a difficult one. In order to grasp it, we must peal back centuries of established theology (both correct and incorrect) in order to look at the immediate role and self-understanding that Jesus had of himself as a prophet in first century Palestine, warning his contemporaries about the threat of Rome and God's imminent judgment upon the nation of Israel. Jesus was deeply steeped in the Jewish prophetic traditions, both in terms of metaphor and method, particularly in how Old Testament prophets acted out God's message and even upcoming judgment (see Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.). In this way, Jesus, in his crucifixion, was acting out the destruction of Israel by Rome. He was demonstrating through a prophetic act that if the people continued their way of being Israel and did not turn to God's way (the way of Jesus), then Rome would attack and destroy Israel. Rome would treat the people of Israel as enemies of the state and crucify them, which is exactly what happened in AD 70.

ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACHTHANI

One of the more significant misunderstandings people have when reading the Gospels is the belief that God the Father rejected or turned his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

This confusion is largely derived from Jesus' crying out on the cross “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” (Mark 15:34).

At first look the idea that Jesus is p...roclaiming that God has forsaken or rejected him seems fairly straightforward. Certainly, everyone at the time believed that Jesus was in this situation because God was not with him (Mark 15:29-32).

However, Jesus' cry of "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI" is actually an Aramaic translation of Psalm 22:1. If you read the entirety of Psalm 22 a far different picture emerges of what is going on in Jesus' situation.

The Psalm tells of a figure who is crying out to God in desperation. He is in the worst of circumstances. It looks like his enemies have conquered him. They laugh at his affliction. Everyone believes the figure has been deserted by God.

BUT ... in verse 24 we read the following:

"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard."

The whole purpose of Psalm 22 is to show that even though it seems like God has turned his back on the figure, in fact, God has been with that person the entire time. He has not rejected.

So when Mark includes Jesus crying out the first line of Psalm 22, he is pointing to the entire Psalm and its meaning, arguing that, just like in the Psalm, even though it seems like God has rejected Jesus, the exact opposite is true: God is with Jesus the entire time him.

The people who gathered at the cross to watch Jesus be executed with the brigands were oblivious to this. In fact, Mark highlights their confusion by saying that when they heard Jesus say, " ELOI, ELOI", they thought he was saying "Elijah, Elijah" (Mark 15:35).

Interestingly, so many of us get this wrong, too. The original readers of Mark would have gotten the literary allusion and understood the meaning: God did not reject or turn his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

Wager of Peace?

I've been practically gagging these past few days in my attempts to stomach the celebrations given to Nelson Mandela. It's so difficult for me to hear people from across the political spectrum and from every walk of life state that Mandela was a man of peace who waged non-violent resistance on the apartheid system.

I think the kicker was this article at the Associated Baptist Press: Nelson Mandela: Wager of Peace.

Wager of peace?

Nelson Mandela founded the terrorist organization "Umkhonto we Sizwe" (MK) in 1961 that carried out hundreds and hundreds of bombings on government installations, shopping centers and restaurants. He personally ordered these bombings. He was labeled a terrorist because of it. He went to prison for 27 years because of it. He was offered release numerous times if only he would renounce violence. He refused. And believe me, these bombings killed far more blacks than whites. And he, the MK, and the African National Congress (ANC) violently terrorized and tortured their own people to squash any collaboration and compromise with the apartheid government of South Africa. As late as 1988, Mandela refused to renounce violence as a means to end apartheid. Throughout the 1980s, the government of South African was in negotiations with the ANC to end apartheid on condition that they end the violence and break off relations with the Soviet Union, Mandela refused. The bombings of civilians in the 1980s continued. It wasn't until the break up of the Soviet Union and the end of their support that Mandela and the ANC were willing to renounce violence.

I'm sorry but no matter how noble his cause, Mandela never had a problem using excessive violence to reach his goals. There is nothing Christ-like about this. This is completely foreign to the non-violent teachings of Jesus. For people to compare Mandela to Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. and others who actually did apply the teachings of Jesus is to do a great injustice to true non-violent resistance.

Wager of peace? Unfortunately, Mandela waged violent war.

There was nothing peaceful about what he did.

 

Responding to Oppression I

Over the past three days I have been meditating upon the manner in which one responds to societal oppression. In particular I was thinking about South Africa in the 20th Century and the more recent news coming out of the Central African Republic. How do we react to oppressive regimes and violent brutality?

Appropriately enough, the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah has just concluded, which celebrates in part the violent but nevertheless successful rebellion of 2nd century BCE Jews led by Judas Maccabeus over the brutal oppression of the Seleucid Empire. Despite the success, the methods employed had a detrimental effect upon the psyche of the majority of the nation to the point that they continually adopted a brigand's means of violent revolution to Roman occupation and oppression in the 1st century CE.

One of the main thrusts of Jesus' prophetic message to 1st century Jewish people was that their current methods of responding to Rome would lead to the destruction of the nation (see the Sicarii and Simon bar Kokhba). These were the violent methods that they had adopted since the Maccabean Revolt that to them had proved obviously effective. Instead, Jesus called on the people to abandon their current way of being God's people and follow his way -  a way so notably put forth in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

I don't think anyone would suggest sitting down and allowing brutality to happen, but that does not mean that one should respond with brutality. One can engage in active non-violent resistance (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.) without using the methods of the enemy. While violent resistance does lead to immediate results, the results can just as immediately be overturned by the same methods. Such methods also have a debilitating effect upon the psyche of both the wielder and the victim. Non-violent resistance is usually a far more gradual process of political change that requires both patience and maturity, but the results are far more difficult to reverse. It also has an uplifting effect upon the psyche (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.).

The best way of responding to oppression, brutality, violence, and evil, the most human way, the way that most clearly reflects the image of God in this world, is the method of love, mercy, self-denial, forgiveness, peace, and turning the other cheek.

This is not the easiest road and it is certainly not the method of immediate self-gratification, but it is by far the most effective means of establishing permanent and positive societal change.

As we proceed through the Christmas season, let us meditate upon peaceful approaches societal problems and, most importantly, evaluate the methods of the political leadership we too often tend to idolize.

“WHAT IS TRUTH?”

There is the famous passage in John 18 where Jesus is before Pilate and they are in conversation. Jesus concludes by saying, “Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate famously replies with, “What is truth?” (v.37-38) And that’s how the conversation ends.

People have always found it odd that Jesus does not appear to answer Pilate’s question. Those less inclined to the Christian Faith will often say, “Ah-ha! See? Jesus couldn’t answer that question.” Honestly, even if Jesus couldn’t answer that question or didn’t know the answer to that question, do you think that the author of a book that argues that Jesus was equivalent with the God of the universe (1:1-2; 8:58; 10:30; 14:7-11) would record a question to Jesus that didn’t have an answer?

Those more inclined to the Christian Faith will scramble for an answer, some concluding that Pilate turned away before Jesus could answer him. For a similar reason as above, this seems unlikely.

So what is the answer?

The answer is found most explicitly in 14:6. Jesus says, “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, and no one comes to the Father, but through me.” (See also the slightly more cryptic 5:33; 8:32; 17:17). Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is shown to be full of truth (1:14). He tells the truth (8:40, 45, 46; 16:7; 18:37). Truth comes through him (1:17; 8:32; 17:19; 18:37). The Spirit of Truth comes through him (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The word “truth” is used over 25 times in the Gospel of John and almost exclusively in relation to Jesus.

Interestingly, Pilate’s use of the word is the last in the entire book. I believe the author is employing some irony here. After inundating the reader with the Truth, Pilate’s question is an incident of someone just not getting it (of which there are numerous examples in this book). If he had known the Truth, he would have asked, “WHO is truth?”

So Jesus, in fact, has answered Pilate’s question and had been answering it for 18 chapters. Jesus is the Truth.

A Short Review of “Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet” by Dale Allison

Today I finished reading “Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet” by Dale Allison. I thought this book was okay in many respects. It’s primarily a new defense of the idea that Jesus was an eschatological prophet. It is a defense in the sense that Allison critiques and challenges the methods and conclusions of scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Stephen Patterson who reject such an idea in favor of seeing Jesus as either a Jewish Cynic or aphoristic sage. It is new in the sense that Allison qualifies Jesus’ eschatology as taking the forms of millenarianism and asceticism.


Allison’s critique of the methods of Crossan et al is both thorough and enlightening. In some places, it’s fun. I’ve never taken Crossan, Borg, and their ilk seriously, but it is amusing to see them taken to the scholarly woodshed.

While I do appreciate Allison’s defense of the eschatological nature of Jesus ministry, I am not convinced that Jesus and his fledgling pre-Easter movement can or should be categorized as millenarian. At the very least, that is too broad a term to be adequately applied to Jesus’ context.

On the other hand, Allison’s examination of Jesus asceticism was thoroughly enjoyable and highly thought-provoking. In particular, I was intrigued by the notion that Jesus ascetic practices of property, money, poverty, sex, and housing were a part of his belief in a “realized eschatology” that pointed back to a pre-Fallen Edenic world and towards a New Creation. Interesting.

The place where I find the biggest fault with Allison here is his adherence to the view that Jesus did indeed expect an imminent, catastrophic end of the world. His errors: 1) He dies not sufficiently understand the characteristics, purpose, and role of apocalyptic language and literature. 2) He underestimates Jesus’ grasp of the apocalyptic. 3) He seems to maintain that any supposed popularity of misinterpretation of a literary form during its lifetime negates an author’s intentions if holding true to that form. 4) Is a common era that would take too long to explain but involves incongruity between what some scholars think that the Gospel writers did with the predictions of Jesus and what one would have expected them to do if these same scholars are correct.

Still, a very good book.