The Wife of Jesus?

All over the internet this week has been the story of a fragment of an ancient Egyptian document with the words "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'" In all, the fragment contains just 33 words and incomplete sentences - an English teacher's worst nightmare! Karen King of Harvard University, one of the scholars charged with analyzing the fragment, stopped short of saying this proves Jesus was married, only to add that some ancient Christians thought Jesus was in fact married...to a woman...just to clarify...thought I'd throw that in for free!
Over the years, as these sorts of discoveries are unearthed and plastered all of the media, I've found these scholars (and there are more) to be level-headed, fair and accurate in their commentary. Check it out!
Darrell Bock
Craig A. Evans
UPDATE:
Larry Hurtado
Simon Gathercole

How God Became King

Great video intro and interview on Tom Wright's recent work on the Gospel story and God's kingship, How God Became King. Salient points:

• Each generation has to learn how to articulate the  Gospel story
• Gospels reveal a narrative strategy
• "Theme" of the gospels is God becoming King

I haven't read the book yet, but plan to and it's that third point in particular that I'm most interested in, to see how he teases it out and how he connects it to the Old Testament, which had such a robust view of the King and Kingdom.

Please...drop your thoughts in the comments section!

Among Exiles

In looking recently at the parallels between Ezekiel and Revelation, I was struck by use of the term and motif of "exile". In Ezekiel, exile is explicit, as he states he is in exile with his countrymen. In Revelation it is implied, as John writes from the vantage point of "exile", banished to the isle of Patmos, "because of the word of God".  Is there significance in the vantage point of exiles for both of these authors? Does this vantage point have any bearing on our life of faith, whether or not we are geographically "exiled"?

First, Ezekiel and John embodied the situation of the people, before they spoke to the people. Ezekiel was present physically with his exiled people, no doubt feeling the sting of their solitude and disorientation. John wasn't present with the people he served, but his state, the state of "exile", no doubt paralleled that of the people he attempted to reach. Second, both Ezekiel and John developed a theology of exile and wove that theology into their message. Not only this, but they lived a theology of exile, embodying a faithfulness sustained by hope.

Is our context too different to warrant a connection to the example and exile theology of Ezekiel and John? Different, but not completely dissimilar. God's people today, no matter their setting or geographic location, are in a sense in "exile". It may not be a forced exile as in Ezekiel's day, or an imposed exile as in John's case, but as we long for the fullness of God's kingdom on earth, we realize our present circumstance is tainted by "exile". This present world doesn't completely align with God's promised reality and God's certain victory. Exile theology also places (sometimes thrusts!) God's people into the situation they are sent to address. Both Ezekiel and John saw the horrors a world in exile can produce, which no doubt gave them both the perspective of their God and the compassion necessary to talk to people in a compelling way.

"Exile" is disorienting and unsettling. By nature it is uncomfortable. However, it is where we sit. But, will we grumble about our vantage point, or recognize the blessing of our vantage point. Both Ezekiel and John used their position as exiles to powerfully speak to the powers set at odds with God's kingdom, using any means necessary to reach exiles in the grip of those powers. May God help us to do the same.

Summary of the People of God

I don't know of a theological blogger that challenges set patterns of thinking more than Andrew Perriman, who blogs at postost.net. He advocates a "Narrative-Historical" way of reading the Bible, particularly the New Testament. Always thought provoking, and deep, Perriman bucks trends and in the end, though widely read, is really his own man. Worth the read, but block out some significant chunks of time to ponder the direction he takes with the narrative of Scripture. No, you won't always agree, but you'll be educated along the way.


With that as a long introduction, I found this quote today in one of his recent posts - "From Abraham onwards the people of God is a community of new creation in the midst of the nations and cultures of the world." Well, said Andrew...well said.

Jesus, Exile and the Old Testament

Jesus from the Deesis Mosaic (Photo credit: jakebouma)

Read through a paper last night by Doug McComiskey, "Exile and the Purpose of Jesus' Parables" - 29 pages of goodness! His basic thesis was that Jesus thought the Jews of his day were still in exile and his parabolic teaching was used in part to underscore that fact to his audience. McComiskey draws on the work of NT Wright, understandably so, but does his own heavy lifting in connecting Jesus' words/parables to the original Old Testament texts. In doing so, he makes two significant points: 1) The original context/meaning of the OT was broad enough to include the generation of Jesus (and beyond). Therefore Jesus did not have to pour some "new meaning" into the older text. 2) Jesus saw himself connected tightly to the OT story and didn't simply use the OT to "proof text" his point.

These two points run contrary to much of the scholarly discussion today which leans more heavily on finding a deeper meaning in the OT text, on the one hand, and reducing Jesus' appropriation of the OT to simply prooving theological points on the other (proof texting - having a point and attempting to find a verse for support, usually without respecting the context). For McComiskey meaning and context work together to form a narrative, organic whole with Jesus at the heart of the story.

 

Context, Audience and The Gospel in Romans

Expecting to jump into a cultural context and ecclesial context which he was not familiar with first hand experience, the Apostle Paul writes his letter to the church (or churches) at Rome. It seems that the churches in Rome were disperate, spread out and theologically diverse at least in terms of their practice, if not their belief. And since Paul seemed to have wanted the church at Rome to be a base for his mission to Spain - since he was not one to be the renegade apostle he's sometimes portrayed as - he had a lot of work to do if he was to "unite" them under the Biblical vision of what God had done in Christ; the message he sought to preach. 

Considering this "diversity" and Paul's desire to link it all together, it's interesting to see what Paul hones in on as he develops his story-informed letter. Is there a lesson for us, who live in diverse times, cities and places?

The central concern of Paul, I believe, is to get down to the narrative which unites all of God's people. That narrative is the Good News, or the announcement that Jesus is the Lord's Messiah and the rightful ruler of all of God's creation. This is Paul's greatest concern as he unfolds his letter and I believe we can read Romans as a sustained defence of God's narrative, the gospel. This is, above all else, what Paul wishes for his readers to grasp. His "if you don't get anything else I say, get this!" type of moment.

If the gospel - God's narrative - is the common thread of unity among this diverse groups of believers, how much more for us? 

The Narrative of Romans 2

Too often - perhaps out of just plain 'ole bad reading habits - we apply Romans 2 as a moralistic lesson about judging; why we shouldn't and the eventual fate we'll surely face if we fall prey to this most insidious sin. True enough. However, can this chapter be reduced in such a way? No, this section of Romans is much more than a moral lesson about not judging others. Chapter 2 is inextricably linked to Chapter 1 (keep in mind that chapter divisions were not in the original copies of Scripture; the intent for the original audience was either longer sustained readings - if they could in fact read and had a personal copy - or long sustained hearings) and we do well to try and catch Paul's flow of thought.

What makes Romans 2 much more than a moral lesson on judging is the group it was (is) addressed to. Here again, we need a gentle correction. It's common for our English Bibles to have the chapter heading - on a chapter division that was not contained in the original - of something like "God's Judgment Against the Moralist". If the chapter divisions inserted hundreds of years later than the original autographs were not inspired, then what can we say of chapter headings which came more than a millennium later?!

The shocking power of Romans 2 lies in the fact that Paul, as he had done in Chapter 1, is narrating a story about a people group. The difference is the people group of Romans 2 is the Jewish nation, who had been entrusted with a vocation to be the world's light, God's ambassadors sent into a "Romans 1" type of world, where darkness and sin reign, where human beings, created in God's image, flounder and fail. Despite possessing everything to fulfill their vocation, Israel largely failed - historically - and in Paul's day, had become somewhat of secret society as far as "outsiders" were concerned. In short, they prized their privileges above their calling, their unique status as God's people above the plight of the nations. This led Paul to summarize his kinsmen's vocational plight thusly - because of you, God's name is blasphemed among the nations. 

Similarly, Christians - followers of Christ - pick up on essentially the same vocation as our spiritual ancestors Israel, to be a light to the world. However, by extension, Romans 2 asks us, will fall into the same trap as our ancestors? If the world of Romans 1 walked into our church gathering, would we require them to be just like us before we loved them?

One People of God

In Romans Paul's concerns are arguably as pastoral as they are theological. Certainly the two work together and feed one another, but throughout the history of the Church, the more common focus among theologians has definitely been the latter over the former. However, even if that be the case - Paul is more concerned with a theological "treatise" (theoretical theology) than praxis (practical theology) - Romans 4, as an example, can never be read apart from Paul's aim, or goal.

Paul begins by asking what advantage Abraham - the father of the Jewish people - has and whether or not he's justified in boasting before God? Two primary points lay in the backdrop of his question: 1) Paul's kinsmen may be prompted to boast about their lineage and connection to Abraham and 2) In their thinking if anyone can boast it would be Abraham, as he enjoyed such a lofty and promise-filled relationship with God. So, what follows the introductory question in chapter 4, is not simply a theological explanation of justification or faith, but a defense of the "one people of God" view that Paul fought tooth and nail to uphold. If exclusive allegiance to Abraham meant the believing Jew could boast, or that Abraham himself could boast, those so inclined would feel justified in prizing their special relationship with God over those (Gentiles) less fortunate, and an unnecessary schism in the Church results, since by definition the point of the Church is to reflect the "one people of God", Jew and Gentile together under one King (Jesus), reflecting to the world what the Prophets were pointing to.

Today, boasting of one's pedigree, privileges and status is no less a common occurence, however, it's never based upon Abraham! The church in America is not healthy when it comes to reflecting the "one people of God" vision of Paul. In fact, it's downright sick. I know of a pastor who is famous for saying, "Sunday at 9am is the most segregated hour in the week." I think he's referring to race, primarily - that each ethnic group worships independent of the other, at their own congregations - but the principle and sentiment can certainly, and should be, applied from race to culture and back again. Increasingly, America is becoming sub-culture, culture whereby groups are organized around affinity as well as race. I say that not to diminish abuses that are (still) clearly prevlent around race matters, but to simply point out that the church has to welcome all of God's children, rich, poor, black, white and everything and everyone in between.

To realize this robust "one people of God" vision, take some time to first be aware of your surroundings. You may attend an affluent church; be aware that the person next to you on Sunday morning in the pews, may be flat broke. Welcome them, love them, give them dignity, and for the sake of the gospel and it's Architect, do not "boast" in what you have, as if that matters! You may be aware of your church neighbor and her plight - great! Maybe you need to begin to move outside of your four walls then and serve alongside a church of a different ethnic group, for instance. Learn their gospel "flavor" if you will. Listen. Learn. Serve and then praise your God who desires to make "one people" out of many, spiritually, without making them the "same" robotically.