Posted on

Jesus Tells a Lie and Breaks the Sabbath: Festival Attendance and Sabbath Controversy

Painting on west wall in Dura Synagogue. Possibly a depiction of the midwives before Pharaoh, receiving order to kill the male babies. In the narrative they lie to Pharaoh and are blessed by God. – Exod 1.15-21

I derive the title of this post from John 7, where Jesus first tells a lie (7.1–10) and later defends his right to heal on the Sabbath (7.20–24; cf. 5.1–15). I would imagine, that for many readers of this post, the first of these transgressions is much more shocking than the latter. Interestingly, though, while Jesus breaks two commandments of the Decalogue he only defends himself against Sabbath breaking. In fact, the evangelist is not at all concerned that Jesus lies.

In this post, I want to briefly examine both transgressions and then offer a hypothetical retelling of the Sabbath controversy, where we replace Sabbath breaking with lying. This will be an attempt to explicate the severity of Jesus’ actions to those who are typically not troubled by Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath.

{Update (7/7/13): When I first wrote this post it seemed to me evident that Jesus was indeed lying. I therefore did not include a defense of this conclusion but simply stated it as fact. I have received a couple of responses challenging my statement that Jesus was lying and, while I have responded to them below, I feel that I ought to provide a formal defense within the post of why I believe Jesus is lying in John 7.

It seems to me that Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem to celebrate Succoth anon after telling his brothers that he is not going to Jerusalem leaves us with two options: Jesus changed his mind or he lied to his brothers. If we entertain the former, we need to find something in the text that reveals (whether explicitly or implicitly) that Jesus changed his mind. Thus, we need to know why Jesus decided not to go. In v. 6 Jesus tells his brothers that the reason does not want to attend Succoth is because his “time has not yet come,” which means it is not time for Jesus to die. Thus, in light of his opposition that is waiting to kill him at any opportunity (v. 1), Jesus’ reason for not wanting to attend Succoth is more than understandable. It is odd, however, that Jesus does attend the festival even though his hour had not yet come (see 8.20) and indeed will not come until the end of his public career (17.1). It does not seem, then, that Jesus changed his mind, for the very reason why he told his brothers he was not attending had not yet occurred.

In order to examine the second option––i.e., Jesus lied––we need to find a motivation to for Jesus to lie. The narrative reveals that there was an opposition to Jesus waiting in Jerusalem in order to kill him (v. 1), thus Jesus can not enter into Jerusalem conspicuously. Although his brothers are probably not intending to enter Jerusalem behind a marching band announcing their arrival, they are also not concerned about stealth. Jesus, on the other hand, wants to remain unseen until his speech. Thus, it is quite plausible that Jesus lied to his brothers that he was not going to attend Succoth so that he could surreptitiously enter Jerusalem on his own (v. 10) and remain their under the protection of his supposed absence (a pretense his brothers would have unknowingly spread).

In the end, the argument that Jesus changed his mind is weakened by the fact that the reason Jesus gave for not attending Succoth is not fulfilled until ch. 17. In other words, there appears to be no explicit or implicit reason in the text for Jesus to have changed his mind. On the other hand, the argument that Jesus lies coincides well with Jesus’ knowledge that his opponents want to kill him, which provides a clear motivation as to why Jesus would have lied to his brothers.}

*     *     *

Growing up, lying was always considered one of those absolute sins; that is, there was never a time when lying was justified. It’s a sin. Period. You don’t do it. It was also common to play the “what if” game, where we would place ourselves in difficult scenarios, which would engender a discussion about whether it was appropriate to lie or whether the truth was the appropriate response. As far as I remember, 100% of the time, no matter what situation in which we found ourselves, it was always wrong to lie. We justified this by saying that when we tell the truth, we leave matters in the hands of God.

While I am no longer an “absolutist” about the sinfulness of lying, it was still a bit shocking when I came across a lie told by Jesus. In John 7.8, Jesus tells his brothers, “I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.” Once his brothers go off to the festival, however, we are told that “Jesus himself also went up [to the festival]” (v. 10).

Jesus certainly has his reasons for lying to his brothers; namely, that he desires to attend the festival secretly, for his time (i.e., arrest/death) has not yet come (v. 6). Regardless of the reasons, though, Jesus is portrayed as a liar. What’s more, the evangelist does not seem to be too concerned about Jesus’ lie. Rather, the evangelist is much more concerned with defending Jesus’ other sin: healing on the Sabbath (7.20–24; cf. 5.1-15; 9.1–14).

Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath was first taken up by the evangelist in ch. 5. Jesus defended his actions by stating that he will work on the Sabbath because the Father works continuously (v. 17). In ch. 7, though, Jesus takes a different approach. He defends himself by pointing out the already established rule that when the eighth day of an infants life falls on the Sabbath it is permitted to break the Sabbath to perform circumcision. Basically, circumcision was determined by the Jewish leaders to be weightier than the Sabbath. So when these two regulations came in conflict with each other, the weightier law (in this case, circumcision) was to be observed. Jesus’ conclusion is that healing someone on the Sabbath is not a sin because deliverance from oppression is a weightier command than keeping the Sabbath.

If you are not a Jew, the fact that Jesus would break Sabbath regulations to heal someone probably does not cause you any concern. However, keeping the Sabbath has always been a hallmark of Judaism. As such, Jesus actions on the Sabbath would come across as shocking and incredible for many Jews. This was certainly true for Jesus opponents in the Gospel accounts.

So why are non-Jews less troubled by Jesus actions on the Sabbath? I can only imagine it is because there is no emotional tie to the Sabbath. Gentiles might be aware of the importance of the Sabbath for Jews but this awareness is nothing more than intellectual knowledge. The Sabbath does not significantly impact the lives of gentiles.

Lying, on the other hand, has a more significant impact. For many Christians (and Jews?) lying is a sin that is never justified. If this is the case, I would argue that if these Christians want to get a better understanding of how unimaginable Jesus’ Sabbath actions would have been to those around him, perhaps it would be worthwhile to replace “Sabbath” with “lying.” As mentioned at the beginning of the post, this is a hypothetical scenario. Nevertheless, it bears some veracity because we have already seen that Jesus does tell a lie.

If we insert “lying” in place of “Sabbath,” then in John 5 and 9 Jesus delivers a man from oppression by lying. (Perhaps a fitting scenario would be that the man is being oppressed and Jesus lies about his whereabouts in order to deliver him from his oppressors. There are certainly other occasions in the Scriptures where someone lies to deliver someone from oppression and in return are blessed by God because they are doing his will [Exod 1.15–21; Josh 2]. More recently, those who lied to protect the Jews from the Nazis would be an appropriate illustration.) To put this in an accusatory form, Jesus is a liar. If this strikes you as blasphemous, then you get the point. It would be similar to the accusatory statement, Jesus breaks the Sabbath. One might respond that, “God would never command someone to lie; thus, clearly a man who lies can not be from God.” Now your starting to react like Jesus’ opponents (9.16). For Jesus, though, his actions are not his own, but those of the Father (4.34; 5.17, 19–22, 30, 36; 8.28; 10.25, 37; 14.10; 17.4, 14). Thus, Jesus is vindicated when he breaks the Sabbath and when he lies, for God has commanded him to do both.

Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

Douglas Campbell and Romans 1:16-17

I just finished watching “Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul,” which was a conference held a King’s College in London. I am particularly interested in this conference because its purpose was to engage with the work of Douglas Campbell who is, in my mind, currently one of the most important scholars in Pauline Studies. I have read his two books cover to cover and simultaneously agree and disagree with much of his work. One of my favorite proposals in his most recent work regards the translation of Romans 1:16-17. Here is the text, then the current accepted translation and then his translation.

Rom. 1:16-17 ¶ Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι. δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.

Rom. 1:16-17 ¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” NRSV

Rom 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel for the power of God is salvation to all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the right act of God is revealed by faith for faith as it is written, “The Righteous One will live by faith(fulness).”

I absolutely love this translation. Campbell has helped me see that Paul’s emphasis was not on the Gospel (i.e., the thing that is opposed to the Law) but on the act of God in Christ. It is not that Paul didn’t preach the Gospel; it is just that he didn’t see it as being defined by being the antithesis of something else. The act of God in Christ is the means by which all other aid from God flows. God has rescued all those who have turned to him due to Christ’s faith — not our own.

Maybe Campbell’s work won’t be accepted in many circles but I think that his work will end up having a much greater and more lasting effect on Pauline scholarship (and hopefully preaching) than most people think. Here is a short exempt of his justification for the translation.

This noun phrase precedes the verb and therefore is best construed in the first instance as that verb’s subject Moreover, in so preceding, it parallels exactly the following sentence, which has a similar substantive phrase concerning God in the first position — a phrase that is invariably read as the sentence’s subject. If “righteousness of God” is read in the predicate, then both these apparent signals are being ignored. Such a reading is not impossible, but it would need supporting reasons, and it is difficult to know what they might be (that is, other than a priori ones). At first glance it seems that the “righteousness of God” and the “power of God” in w. 16b-17a are parallel acts of God. Indeed, 1:18 also fore- grounds an act of God — there his wrath — in the position of subject, although not in the sentence’s first position.” DOG 702

 

 

 

Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

Jesus Kept Kosher

What follows is a review of chapter 3 in Daniel Boyarin’s new book The Jewish Gospels. I intend to review all the chapters but this was the first chapter review I finished. In this chapter Boyarin’s thesis is simple: Despite centuries of interpretation otherwise Jesus did not, in any way, abandon the Torah and not only that but, he is representative of an older more conservative Judaism not a heretical liberal spin-off. The old misinterpretation, he claims, results from the misreading the controversy story found in Mark 7.

¶ Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”

9Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God)— 12 then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”

14  Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” 17   When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Traditionally, this text has been thought to teach that Jesus was abandoning the Torah’s restrictions on food. This interpretation has seemed unavoidable due to the interpretive gloss found in v. 19 “Thus he declared all foods to be clean.” Boyarin quotes a few top scholars to give a sense of the consensus but he then proposes in contradistinction, “Jesus was…not fighting against the Jews or Judaism but with some Jews for what he considered to be the right kind of Judaism.” Not only does Boyarin’s view claim that Jesus was Torah observant he takes it a step further and claims that the Pharisees were the “dangerous innovators” of the day.

His argument rests on two major observations: 1) Scholars have not often distinguished between the forbidden and allowed paradigm and the clean and unclean paradigm. 2) Christianity is not, as has traditionally been thought, an anti-Jewish movement. It is a movement from within Judaism and is in opposition to a current view within their religion (that of the Pharisee’s).

As for the first point, I must say that this is a brilliant distinction that makes complete sense. The argument is not about the legality of food but about purity. Jesus’ remarks are not changing scripture by allowing what it had not allowed but they are meant to attack the “traditions of the elders” which contradicted the original intent of the deeper meaning of the instructions. Jesus is simply stating that food cannot make one impure since food does not operate within that sphere of understanding. Food is either allowed or it is disallowed. To eat from the forbidden foods would be an act of rebellion i.e., a moral act. Purity did not connect to morality in the same way. One may become impure through no fault of his own and would not be guilty of sin. (Of course, to partake in ritual while unclean is a moral issue but that is not what Jesus is talking about.) Scripture did not teach that food could effect purity. So, when Jesus is said to “declare all foods clean” he is only saying that Scripture has not said that food should be thought of in those categories and not that now all food is “allowed.”

Jesus is not anti-Jewish he is anti-Pharisee. He also points out that this dispute is not a dispute over Halakah (how to apply the commands of the Torah) but is a dispute over the purpose of the Torah. Jesus wants the “deeper” truths that the Torah points toward to be fundamentally involved in the application while the Pharisees desire to focus on only the outward reality. So, Jesus’ claim that only things that come out of the body can render one impure (i.e., bodily fluids, etc.) is rightfully applied to actions since the also originate “inside” and are completed “outside.”

The second observation, that Christianity was originally conceived as true Jewish religion, is not new but Boyarin adds an interesting twist to this view. He claims that Christianity was not, as many Christian and non-Chritian interpreters have sought to demonstrate, a liberal view but instead is the conservative view in distinction from the ultra conservative view of the Pharisee’s. That is why the passage on foods being “clean” (or, unable to make one “impure”) is connected to the teaching on Qorban. The Markan Jesus is claiming that these so-called “traditions of the elders” (the Qorban) are in opposition to God’s commands (honoring father and mother) and therefore are wrong as they do not understand or sustain the teaching of Scripture. So, this Pharisaic movement, which would eventually (as is supposed) from into the Rabbinic movement, was being exposed by the Markan Jesus as being the too-far-to-the-right Scriptural interpreters and thus enemies of YWHW.

(This observation, according to Boyarin, also helps shed light on Jesus’ claim, in Matthew, that they sought to “convert [other Jews]” since they were not the “only” form of Judaism in the day but they merely were in the ascendent in the certain geographical parts of Judea.)

My takeaway from this chapter is that it just another example of Boyarin’s brilliance − whether his view is accepted or not. Jesus was Jewish, Christianity was/is Jewish. The division between the two religions only exists because of later Creeds. The only thing that would have made the chapter better is if he had engaged with the word of Crossley on this. The rhetoric of the chapter makes the reader believe that this view has not been proposed when it has, by Crossley*. Beside that minor quibble I must commend this chapter for its intriguing thesis.
* Crossley, J G. The date of Mark’s Gospel: insight from the law in earliest Christianity. Vol. 266. T&T Clark, 2004.

 

 

 

Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

Attempts to Harmonize Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity

Personifications of Church and Synagogue at the Strasbourg Cathedral, depicting the triumph of Christianity over Judaism

Typically, when I think about the relationship between early Christianity and Judaism, I picture binary opponents. That is, there are two extreme positions, each one deeming the other a heresy and, thus, self-identifying in relation to their extreme counterpart. More specifically, I picture Christians who viewed Judaism as antiquated, erroneous, or simply insufficient. On the other side, I picture non-Christian Jews viewing the Jesus movement as a heretical and defunct sect of Judaism, erroneously attesting to have certain ties to Judaism. Within this latter group I would also place Jewish Christians who would view Jesus and the movement associated with him as completely harmonious with Judaism and any Christian suggesting otherwise demonstrates in their beliefs that they are, in fact, not followers of the God of Judaism, and thus, not followers of Jesus.

This default picture of extreme parties having it out against their mirror opposites is a product of the common view that the NT authors represent such binary conflict. While I do not doubt that James and Matthew would have liked to punch Paul in the face (and vica versa), there seems to be evidence that there were “bipartisan” groups, who viewed the extremist’s as valid in their own way.

Finding this voice of a middle group is not always easy, for it is buried beneath the voice of its louder opponents. Nevertheless, it seems that we first hear of such a mediating view from Barnabas (late first–early second c.).

For Barnabas, the Jews never obtained the covenant. Just when they were about to receive it, they permanently lost it when Moses smashed the stone tablets on the ground. From that point on, according to Barnabas, the covenant was established for the Christians (4.6–8). “Christian” for Barnabas is strictly of a non-Jewish persuasion. In fact, to believe otherwise––that is, to believe that the Jews qua Jews also receive the covenant––is sinful. He writes:

Watch yourselves now and do not become like some people by piling up your sins, saying that the covenant is both theirs [Jews] and ours [Gentiles]. (4.6)

This statement reveals to us that there was a group of believers––whether of Jewish or Gentile origin––who believe that the Jesus movement is not an either/or but (perhaps) a both/and. In other words, there are some who do not see Jesus as a divisive line between Jews and Gentiles, but rather, Jesus was a mediator of a shared covenant.

This mediating position emerges again later in the second century in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. In the middle of Justin’s defense of the virgin birth, Trypho retorts:

Let you who are of Gentile origin…who are all named Christians after Christ, profess him to be Lord and Christ and God, as the Scriptures signify. But we Jews, who adore the God who made him, are not obliged to confess or worship him. (64.1)

Despite Justin’s excoriating response to Trypho’s inability to understand his argument, Justin is fairly “flexible” in what he views as acceptable conduct for Jewish converts to Christianity. For instance, when Trypho asks whether a Jew who confesses Jesus to be the Messiah and yet continues to observe the Mosaic Law, would still be saved, Justin responds:

In my opinion…I say such a man will be saved, unless he exerts every effort to influence other men [Gentiles]…to practice the same rites as himself, informing them that they cannot be saved unless they do so. (47.1)

Justin then speaks of “some Christians who boldly refuse to have conversation or meals with such persons [Jewish-Christian law observers]” (47.2); thus, showing that there was diversity in Gentile Christianity about the validity of Law observance for Jewish Christians. For Gentile Christians who observe the Mosaic Law, Justin is uncertain of their final outcome. For these, he can only say that they “will probably be saved” (v. 3). Finally, Justin states what he assumes to be the correct (“orthodox”) belief of the time, that Jews or Gentiles who only practice Jewish Law and deny Jesus, forfeit salvation (v. 4). There is no uncertainty in Justin’s tone here. Justin’s uncompromising tone (and the fact that he brings the issue up at all) suggests that there were Jews and/or Gentiles who argued that the “covenant is both theirs and ours” (Barn 4.6). In other words, it seems that Justin is reacting against a group who believes that Jesus is good for the Gentiles, Moses is good for the Jews, and both are from God; thus, both are acceptable.

At the beginning of the fourth century we find a text that stands between the extremes. The author/editor of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions appears to be a Jewish Christian and sees no conflict between Jesus and the Torah or Moses. He writes:

If anyone has been thought worthy to recognize by himself both [i.e., Moses and Jesus] as preaching one doctrine, that one has been counted rich in God, understanding both the old things as new in time and the new things as old. (Hom. 8.7; cf. Rec. 4.5)

From this selection, the author/editor is similar to Matthew, in that Jesus is the like Moses and speaks and teaches in harmony with Moses. However, in the Recognitions we find a flexibility that we do not see in Matthew. In Matthew, those who reject Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah will be damned at judgment. In the Recognitions we read:

By which it is certainly declared, that the people of the Hebrews, who were instructed out of the law, did not know him [Jesus]; but the people of the Gentiles have acknowledged Jesus, and venerate him; on which account also they shall be saved, not only acknowledging him, but also doing his will. But he who is of the Gentiles, and who has it of God to believe Moses, ought also to have it of his own purpose to love Jesus. And again, the Hebrew, who has it of God to believe Moses, ought to have it also of his own purpose to believe in Jesus; so that each of them having in himself something of the divine gift, and something of his own exertion, may be perfect by both. (Rec. 5.5)

For the author/editor of the Recognitions, each group “ought” to recognize the validity of the other, but it is not commanded. It would seem that, for this author, the Gentiles are in good standing if they do not acknowledge Moses and the Law and the Jews are in good standing if they do not acknowledge Jesus. Perfection, though, is attained when the extreme parties acknowledge the beliefs and traditions of the other as acceptable before God.

I can only imagine that this group found itself getting beat over the head by both extremes (similar to the way bipartisan candidates today receive criticism from both Republican and Democrats). In the end, the extreme groups are often the loudest and most prolific in writing; thus, we find ourselves inundated with literature from the extreme parties. Perhaps, though, the best way to see the legitimacy of the work of God is through the eyes of the author/editor of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, who views the extreme factions as factions and perfection is attained when these factions cease and harmony among God’s people is realized.

Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

Larry Hurtado and Review of Pauline Scholarship

Over at his blog, Hurtado summarizes Tom Wright’s review of Pauline scholarship in what seems to be the first post of two on the state of Pauline scholarship. The following post will summarize Douglas Campbell’s approach to Paul, Duke’s own most recent thorough investigations into the question of Paul and Justification with a fresh, yet some might find odd, reading of Romans 1-3. The review of Wright is certainly worth a quick read, and we look forward to a helpful summary of Campbell (especially those of us who haven’t made our way through the entirety of his door-stop-of-a-tome, The Deliverance of God). Check it out here.

Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

Pagan Symbolism in Christian and Jewish Art

So in the process of doing research for a paper, I kept coming across early Christian paintings of Jonah and the Great Fish. The first thing I thought was that these paintings look nothing like the Jonah inscription on ossuary 6 from Talpiot Tomb B. I also noticed that this was a popular story. It is reproduced throughout the vast catacomb networks in Rome and also on sarcophagi. For the most part, the images looked the same. And many of these images told the story of Jonah being eaten by the fish, Jonah being spit out by the fish, and Jonah resting on dry land, usually under a plant/tree or a vine. The theme of this story is the deliverance of God; apropos as it is painted in tombs and inscribed on sarcophagi. There was one particular painting of the story of Jonah, though, that caught my eye. Like the others, the the depiction of Jonah and the Great Fish in the Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus is told in three scenes, but with one big difference. While Jonah (as an orant) is eaten by the fish in the first scene and Jonah is resting in the third scene, this fourth century artist has replaced the the middle scene with a depiction of Helios riding through the heavens on his horse drawn chariot! This isn’t actually a depiction of Helios, though. This is simply how Helios is depicted in pagan art; he rides his chariot across the heavens during the daily cycle. The nimbus behind the figure on the chariot in the Jonah story suggests there is some type of divine status to be applied to him (although I’m curious why its blue and not yellow/gold). Perhaps this is a painting of Jesus riding the chariot through the heavens. Perhaps the symbolism behind this painting is the hope of apotheosis of the deceased. The Helios symbolism is also found in a tomb under St. Peter’s Basillica. This third-century painting has been dubbed the Christ-Helios.

In the same tomb there is a picture of Jonah being tossed off a boat and into the mouth of a great sea monster. God as deliverer in Christ seems to go well with the Jonah story.

A wall from a later synagogue runs through the zodiac. Notice the resemblance between this Helios and the Christ-Helios beneath St. Peter's Basilica.

The use of Helios imagery was also used in Jewish synagogues (Hammat Tiberias [4th/5th c.], Sepphoris [5th c.], Beth Alpha [6th c.]). In the synagogue, though, Helios is inside the zodiac and the personified seasons occupy the corners. The central figure riding the chariot has been interpreted many ways. Some take it to represent God himself (Goodenough), Elijah (Waden), or Metatron (Magness) Christians also followed suit (or vise versa), though. At the Monastery of the Lady Mary in Beth Shean the 6th century zodiac appears on a floor mosaic, where a personified Helios and Selene are at the center. I would be interested to read the interpretations on that mosaic! In light of all of this, a couple things are striking to me. First, the Jonah and the Great Fish depictions in 3rd and 4th century Christian art look nothing like that which is proposed to be on ossuary 6 at the Talpiot tomb. Second, it is interesting that pagan symbols were borrowed so readily by both Jews and Christians. I say, “readily” because there is a host of other pagan symbols used throughout the Christian catacombs and in synagogues. This has certainly caused me to reconsider the weight of the authority behind written material:

“All images are forbidden because they are worshiped [at least] once a year. So says R. Meir. But the sages say: ‘Only that is forbidden which holds a staff or a bird or a sphere in its hand.’ R. Simeon b. Gameliel says: ‘Anything holding an object is forbidden.’ (m. Abod. Zar. 3.1)

The left hand is holding a sphere or globe
Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

Resurrection? Bringing the Blog back to Life

Happy Easter to all! Christos Anesti!

It has been just over two months since our last post here on The Time Has Been Shortened, and after friends have pestered us about whether or not we are going to continue blogging, we feel that it is time for an explanation. Many of us are very busy in life right now as grad students. With some of us having two or more jobs, pastoring, grad work, having children, etc. it has been very difficult to maintain a blog on biblical studies. We have been discussing this and have decided to incorporate more of our current projects and interests from our classes, especially major paper topics that we find interesting or worth sharing.

Also we have had many requests to finish the New Testament portion of our interview series I began entitled: “Monotheism and the Bible: Origins, Issues, and the Status Quaestionis.” The interviews with Nathan McDonald and Michael Heiser in the “Monotheism and the Hebrew Bible” section were well received. They have been found to be helpful for people interested in receiving a basic introduction to the contours of the present scholarly conversation regarding “monotheism” and the Ancient Israelite religion (whether variegated or monolithic) represented in the Hebrew Bible.

What still remains is to complete the interviews regarding the nature of Christology and Monotheism that is represented in the New Testament. The interviewees chosen for this specific topic were chosen based on their experience in the field: Larry Hurtado, who has written and taught  for many years on the topic, and James McGrath, whose 2009 monograph “The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context” sparked a lively discussion between the two scholars highlighting important points of divergence in the wider conversation regarding the nature of early Christian monotheism and christology. It will be genuinely interesting to pick up this conversation where it left off to see if there are any further nuances the scholars would like to share regarding this heated topic of discussion. My hope is that both will still graciously participate, even though the interview series had been put on hold for the semester.

“The Time Has Been Shortened” is happy to announce it’s resurrection on resurrection day. What better day to do it?

Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

The Emperor Has No Clothes – 2 Corinthians 4:4 – Pt. 3

The first SBL that I attended was in San Diego (2007). I had just been introduced to N.T. Wright and I was ready to have every theological and methodological assumption challenged. When I arrived in San Diego I overheard a conversation about a debate between N.T. Wright and one of his former student (I now know this was John Barclay) regarding Paul and Empire. I couldn’t wait! I arrived at the massive meeting room more than an hour before the debate was to start. (Actually, I had time to eat my lunch before anyone else even arrived.)

As the debate was approaching I just knew that N.T. Wright was going to trounce Dr. Barclay. Well, that didn’t happen. Wright decided that he wouldn’t even engage in Barclay’s argument and instead chose to give a speech. Barclay, gave a clever and engaging speech as well which thoroughly convinced me that Paul proclaimed Jesus as the Lord of the world and while his words may be interpreted as anti-empire the reality of this polemic was as real as the claim that emperor’s new clothes were really there.

Thankfully, my favorite professor did his second Phd on Paul and polemics so he helped me see (by letting me read his dissertation) that a stark dichotomy was not necessary like Prof. Barclay was insisting on. Flash forward now to this years SBL, I am in a session on intertextuality and Dr. Fredrick Long makes an extremely compelling case for ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου referring to Caesar. I will do my best to reconstruct his argument from my notes and his handout. (As of yet I haven’t receive his paper.)

The basic claim of the paper was that we have missed the imagery that the Apostle Paul has been using in 2Corinthians ― the imagery of the triumphal procession (2:14). He claims that much of what Paul says is imagery from this process (and the mystery cult tied to it). He links 30 motifs overall but I will give you the strongest links:

1) 2:15 “among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing” ― many captives died when they arrived at Rome but many times the enemy became Roman.

2) 3:2 “You yourselves are our letter” ― before a general could get a triumph he would write a letter to the city asking permission.

3) 3:3 “You are a letter of Christ” ― paralleled with (with Deissmann) the Imperial letter that would be sent to cities requesting support and then engraved and posted for all to see.

4) 3:18 “Seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror” ― the devotees of Isis wore mirrors in the procession to show respect to the goddesses following them.

5) 4:1 “since it is by God’s mercy” (καθως ηλεηθημεν) ― starting with Julius, pardoning was an imperial strategy with the enemy.

 

The parallel that Dr. Long wants to tease out is that Paul is claiming that he, and those with him, are being led around in procession. He is in bad shape (in regards to his suffering) but he is the prize possessions of the victorious κυριος i.e., if he (the persecutor of the κυριος) could be given mercy, then so could they! But, if they do not have a change of heart and welcome him as the representative of the κυριος then they would be counted as enemies. This is why Paul brings up Moses and the wilderness generation. They two were being led around in procession in the wilderness since they had just defeated Egypt and YHWH wanted procession in his land. They did not trust him; Israel had yet to recover from this. This is why later Paul will proclaim, “Make room for us,” the exact proclamation of those leading the procession.

I am not sure what to make of this view. As soon as I become more familiar with the source material I will be able to make a better judgment. As for now, I have a really tough decision to make when I write my paper.

Submit to reddit Share
Posted on

I’m not sure about Christmas but I know a bit about Sunday

This year the blogsphere has been busy discussing, or should I say condemning, other local expressions of the Lord decision to cancel service due to its conflict with χ-mas. My take on the whole matter is simple: A. To go or not to go to (or have) service is a minor issue that falls in the “gray” area of practice. B. Christmas is not important on the Church calendar C. Therefore, local churches may do what they want. (The Lord will let us know on That Day which was the right call!)

As for my family and I, we attended our old church since I was asked to preach. My sermon was short and this was the thrust:

Every time this year there is always a debate about the validity of Christmas as a CHRISTIAN holiday. Is it the celebration of the Jewish god’s victory over the Roman god? Is it a result of syncretism? Is it blah, blah, blah…

I don’t know and don’t care. I enjoy many things about the “holiday season” and I loathe just as many (if not more). So what…

I don’t have anything to say about Christmas today but I do have something to say about Sunday. It is the celebration not of the coming of the King but of the coming of a servant. The celebration of one who was different. So different our we resist the very thought of Jesus rejecting the title of King yet assuming the role of Messiah, the anointed suffering servant.

Matthew 1:1 ― The book of Jesus the Messiah’s origin, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The son of David:

Throughout the Gospel of Matthew Jesus has one thing that he needs to make clear

to the characters in the story and to the implied audience ― they have no idea what a Messiah looks like! The messiah was to come to Jerusalem as a servant of Israel’s father not as a glorious king.

King David, whose name means servant, was great because he had a heart after YHWH i.e., a heart that sought to serve YHWH and not to be served by his people. He was Israel’s true king for reasons incomprehensible to his family or his people. While David was successful most people completely resented his reign ― it wasn’t right!

As to honor, kings are supposed to be esteemed, supplicate to no one. The honor of the country rests in the honor demanded by the king. David rejected this! This was a king who was despised by his wife because he stripped himself of his royal robes and danced before YHWH as he really was, a servant. David was a bastard and he never forgot his adoption by YHWH! Jesse was carefully careless when it came to presenting all of his children to Samuel yet David was purposely purposeful in his role as Jesse’ son.

The king is to require only the best and most qualified. David remembered Mephibosheth, the cripple. Kings were to live and die honorably, never acting beneath their right ― David feigned insanity and lived amongst the disheveled and disenfranchised for years. What. A. Fool. ― Unelectable. Unworthy of support is the only rational conclusion for a thinking person!

As for military, everyone knew who the enemy of YHWH was the Philistines. David had over many of them in his guard with some even being in his Mighty Men. The characteristics that were valued by other rulers of the day were despised in the eyes of David. He did not need good bloodlines, success at business or esteem by the masses but what he valued was something else ― something that doesn’t show up on a resume! When a true general is faced with an opportunity, they take it (in the name of YHWH no less). David repented to Saul for touching the anointed of YHWH even though he had been anointed king and was on the run from Saul the now renegade king. Humility looks good on shepherds but is loathsome on generals!

True kings are to never admit wrong or to lack an answer to a critical question. David openly repented before YHWH’s prophet. We have many psalms attributed to David where he awaits an answer from YHWH. Not only does he wait but he tearfully and desperately awaits a critical answer. David was not a perfect person but he was perfect for his role.

Solomon, David’s true son was nothing like his father. Yes, he was the wisest of the wise. Yes, he expanded the borders (almost to the extent promised to Abraham). Yes, he was the great temple builder. Yet, he was nothing like his father. While initially all of Israel ate from Solomon’s table, eventually their supplication meant forced labor for the homes of his baboons. Let that last sentence sink in. Homes. For. His. Baboons. Solomon knew little of service and knew less as he grew older. David was born ‘in sin,’ a bastard, so he knew nothing but service from his birth. In spite of this, he only learned to be the servant YHWH could use at the end of his days.

David was close to being the Great King but neither Solomon, nor his children, were even close to David.

“There is always next year!” That is the cry of the loser. Israel knew this well.

That is until…one could pray this and then fulfill these words.

“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want” … Again he went away for the second time and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

“And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

As for the son of Abraham…

 

 

Submit to reddit Share