Wednesday, May 19, 2004
I'm just breaking my blogpost-fast for the exam season to salute the departure of one of the Lutheran blogosphere's founding members, the Fearsome Pirate. If he's gone for good, he will be missed. He was definitely one of the most able and quick-thinking lay theologians I've ever read.
I'll update my links, and give my entire blog a major overhaul once the exams are over. Bring on June 4!
Until then, I give you:
"Pin the Tail on the Donkey" and Scripture
One of my favourite comedians, Brian Regan, has a joke that goes something like this:
When you grow older and you start having your birthday party-games... "Pin the tail on the donkey"..... Now there's a good SAFE game for kids.
What were the adults thinking?
"Hey, we're having a whole bunch of kids over...
big party.....
we're gonna blindfold one...
give him something sharp...
spin him around..
and let him go!
GO BOBBY, WITH THE PIN, JUST RUN AMOCK!!!"
And the kid's just poking around
-"What are those noises?"
"Those are puncture wounds Bobby, stop! You've made a horrible error!"
Another kid's running out the door..
-He missed the donkey and got my neck! He pinned the tail on my neck!
I find this comparible to the sects that arose after the Reformation. Somehow Scripture fell from the sky into their hands, and they just ran with it. Their problem isn't simply that they take Bible verses out of context, but that they take the Bible out of its context -the Church. The Canon was established as a measuring rule of the Church's doctrine, but this does not mean that Scripture is open to every person's own private interpretation. As attractive as the idea is that God guides each individual's interpretation so that armed with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, everyone can understand the Bible, it's simply not what is promised. The Holy Spirit was sent "to guide you into all truth" but the "you" is plural -The Church, through the Apostles. The Bible cannot be understood apart from the Church that produced, received, and collected it. This is part of the reason why it is confessed:
"I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"
A denominational smorgasbord of historically ignorant and hermeneutically challenged sectarians is the antithesis of this.
I'll update my links, and give my entire blog a major overhaul once the exams are over. Bring on June 4!
Until then, I give you:
"Pin the Tail on the Donkey" and Scripture
One of my favourite comedians, Brian Regan, has a joke that goes something like this:
When you grow older and you start having your birthday party-games... "Pin the tail on the donkey"..... Now there's a good SAFE game for kids.
What were the adults thinking?
"Hey, we're having a whole bunch of kids over...
big party.....
we're gonna blindfold one...
give him something sharp...
spin him around..
and let him go!
GO BOBBY, WITH THE PIN, JUST RUN AMOCK!!!"
And the kid's just poking around
-"What are those noises?"
"Those are puncture wounds Bobby, stop! You've made a horrible error!"
Another kid's running out the door..
-He missed the donkey and got my neck! He pinned the tail on my neck!
I find this comparible to the sects that arose after the Reformation. Somehow Scripture fell from the sky into their hands, and they just ran with it. Their problem isn't simply that they take Bible verses out of context, but that they take the Bible out of its context -the Church. The Canon was established as a measuring rule of the Church's doctrine, but this does not mean that Scripture is open to every person's own private interpretation. As attractive as the idea is that God guides each individual's interpretation so that armed with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, everyone can understand the Bible, it's simply not what is promised. The Holy Spirit was sent "to guide you into all truth" but the "you" is plural -The Church, through the Apostles. The Bible cannot be understood apart from the Church that produced, received, and collected it. This is part of the reason why it is confessed:
"I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"
A denominational smorgasbord of historically ignorant and hermeneutically challenged sectarians is the antithesis of this.
Friday, May 07, 2004
Ok, because I've got these 5 exams running from May 13 to June 4 on which depend my grades for the entire year for all but one of my classes, I haven't time to put together real posts, so I'll just post something I wrote earlier. This one might actually be half-decent though. It's another essay I wrote for my NT class (obviously it doesn't actually count towards my grades, but it's compulsory anyway). I'm memorizing it for the exam, since at least one of the essay questions for NT will be something on Christological titles. By the way, the book I keep referencing in it "God Crucified" by Richard Bauckham, is really worth reading, especially for the inter-testimental foundation of the Christological terms of the Gospels. Only 80-something pages too. Anyways, me shut up now.
Markan Christology
A Christological Lens
In order to understand the meaning of the Christological themes in Mark's gospel, we must first establish how the intended audience of Mark would have understood the terms and themes which he uses in his gospel. Some scholars believe, from the explanations of Jewish customs, pro-Gentile themes, ambivalence regarding the Torah, etc. that Mark's gospel was written for a Gentile audience. Other scholars believe that the audience was a more liberal, less Torah-oriented Jewish Christian community who acknowledged the Church's mission to the Gentiles. However, whatever the case, the gospel seems to have been written for an audience who at least had some familiarity, be it due to geographical proximity to Israel, or teaching within their community of Jewish terms (or at least those adopted by the early Church in their teachings about Christ), since distinctly Jewish themes which are not directly explained (for example, the 'Son of Man' sayings) would be unintelligible to an unfamiliar Gentile audience (Taylor 1959, p. 119). For this reason, in my explanation of Christological themes, I will discuss what these themes would have meant in their full Jewish context, assuming that Mark's audience are also capable of understanding them, even if their understanding is not as in-depth and detailed as that of an audience living in Jerusalem, the epicentre of the Jewish faith. There are many Christological themes in Mark's gospel, but for the sake of brevity, I have selected those I consider to be most important and concentrated on them.
Humanity
In his book “New Testament Theology”, Donald Guthrie writes,
We have in our synoptic gospels three portraits of Jesus of Nazareth, which although differing in many details, are all concerned with the same person. It is only Mark, of the three, who in the opening words gives an indication that he is more than a man, and yet he, more than the others, concentrates on the human Jesus. (Guthrie 1991, p. 221)
However, the words “the Son of God” which appear at the beginning of Mark, are not found in some manuscripts which lead us to suspect that they may not be original. (The exact phrase does appear later in the gospel (15:39), and in slightly different forms elsewhere, though this will be discussed later). Mark although constantly eluding to his point that Jesus is more than a man, keeps reminding the reader that Jesus is still truly a man. Jesus is deeply moved in the presence of human suffering (1:41), called a man (2:7, 15:39), angry with hypocrisy and grieved at the blindness of men's hearts (3:5), astonished at unbelief (6:6), indignant with superficial religiosity and lack of compassion (10:13-14), hungered (11:12), ate food (14:18, 22), had a body (14:8, 15:43, 45) and soul (14:34), was part of a family (3:31, 6:3), was limited in knowledge (13:32), terrified of approaching pain and death (14:33-36), vulnerable to physical pain (14:65, 15:23) and death (15:37). Mark, unlike the other synoptic gospels, does not have a supernatural theory of the Incarnation. Rather it is against the backdrop of a fully human life that Mark paints the picture of the Jesus who is more than what he at first seems to be.
Prophet and Teacher
By the end of the first chapter, Mark has already introduced Jesus as a miracle worker, and a man teaching with authority. In Mark's gospel, the noun didaskalos (teacher) is used twelve times, and the verb didaskein (to teach) is used fifteen times. This emphasis on the teaching of Jesus is concentrated around the 'Kingdom of God' and the 'Son of Man', which will be explained later. He very often teaches using parables, a common didactic tool of his time, which would have made his point obvious to his Jewish hearers. Indeed, Jesus' teaching was very compatible with first century Judaism, and we find striking similarities between his parables and the parables of other religious teachers at the time (Wenham 1989, p. 12. cf. Wright 1996, p. 93). However, very often, his disciples are cast as not understanding, and so Jesus has to explain it to them. Jesus, in his teaching, seems to draw attention to himself and his special relationship (which Mark explains more as the story goes on) to this Kingdom. Indeed, Jesus is conscious of his prophethood (6:4) and is regarded as such by others (6:14-16, 8:27-28). He bears the characteristics of many of the Old Testament prophets in his being driven by the Spirit (1:9-11), supernatural perception (2:8), miracles (1:40-43 et al), divine authority (1:27, 2:10), etc. These supernatural occurrences occur only at the beginning of the story, confirming Jesus as more than an ordinary man and giving divine support to his message.
Kingdom of God
Wright writes that the phrase 'Kingdom of God' was
simply a way of talking about Israel's god becoming king. And when this god became king, the whole world, would at last be put to rights. (Wright 1996, pp. 202-203)
He explains that the theme carried a sense of
the anguished longing of Israel for her covenant god to come in his power and rule the world in the way that he had always intended... YHWH, committed to Israel by an unbreakable covenant, was delaying his decisive act, for reasons best known to himself, though earnestly inquired after by the pious. He was holding back from putting into practice the plan that Israel knew he really had. Since he was the god of all the earth, it was clearly his will to keep his promises to Israel by vindicating her at last over her enemies, and by thus reordering the whole world (ibid. p. 203).
But the theme not only carried the hope that this would happen and the question of the delay, but also an agenda of how Jews could practically work towards bringing about the Kingdom. One only has to briefly look at the history of Israel under foreign conquerers to see how much zealous opposition Israel had to anything which went against the establishment of this Kingdom. Under the Romans, Israel's zeal was stirring for YHWH to remove this oppressive regime from them, perhaps by the hands of His people. Even the age-old Sabbaths carried the eschatological interpretation of this consummate act by the God of Israel. For this reason, Jesus would have attracted much interest in his teachings on the Kingdom, especially when he seemed to point to himself as having a monumental role to play in its establishment.
However, Mark's gospel seems to be unclear over the timing of this Kingdom. It is spoken of as something to come in the future, something already realized, and something which was being presently inaugurated. Although there has been much discussion and debate over the solution to this apparent contradiction, Wright argues that Jesus redefined the Kingdom of God, so that it was indeed present, but not as Israel had expected. YHWH was becoming king through Jesus, and this kingdom would reach it's climax in the battle which he would fight in Jerusalem, and his generation would see that he was right to claim all of this. Even before all these events, Jesus taught that the Kingdom was present where he was (Wright 1996, p. 472).
Son of Man and Son of God
The term 'Son of Man' at first was used as a collective noun for Israel, but by the time of Jesus, it had been re-interpreted to point to an individual. It finds its origin in Daniel 7, where the Son of Man comes from earth, to heaven, vindicated after suffering. 'The coming of the Son of Man' is a metaphor for the defeat of the enemies of the people of YHWH and the vindication of the people themselves (ibid. p.361). By using this term, Jesus is announcing himself as Israel's representative, who will be the Suffering Servant who will be later vindicated by YHWH. The promises which YHWH made to Jerusalem and to Zion, are now transferred to Jesus and his people (ibid. p. 363). In the Book of Enoch, the Son of Man, at the day of YHWH, will be placed on the throne of YHWH by YHWH himself, and will be worshipped. (Bauckham 1996, p. 20; cf. 1 En. 51:3; 46:5; 48:5; 61:8; 62:2-6,9; 69:27,29). The term 'Son of God' was, in the Old Testament, applied to angels, to Israel, to the king, and in later Jewish literature, to the Messiah (Taylor 1959, p. 120). In Mark's gospel, the only person to use this term directly is a Gentile centurion. This is no small point. Many Jews had rejected Jesus as their Messiah, but now the covenant of YHWH was transferred to include both Jew and Gentile, as the Church expanded into the Gentile world. Mark informs his audience that the Son of God's true nature is seen in his suffering, taking upon himself his people's fate, so that he, and they with him, would be vindicated over their enemies and set at God's right hand.
Markan Christology
A Christological Lens
In order to understand the meaning of the Christological themes in Mark's gospel, we must first establish how the intended audience of Mark would have understood the terms and themes which he uses in his gospel. Some scholars believe, from the explanations of Jewish customs, pro-Gentile themes, ambivalence regarding the Torah, etc. that Mark's gospel was written for a Gentile audience. Other scholars believe that the audience was a more liberal, less Torah-oriented Jewish Christian community who acknowledged the Church's mission to the Gentiles. However, whatever the case, the gospel seems to have been written for an audience who at least had some familiarity, be it due to geographical proximity to Israel, or teaching within their community of Jewish terms (or at least those adopted by the early Church in their teachings about Christ), since distinctly Jewish themes which are not directly explained (for example, the 'Son of Man' sayings) would be unintelligible to an unfamiliar Gentile audience (Taylor 1959, p. 119). For this reason, in my explanation of Christological themes, I will discuss what these themes would have meant in their full Jewish context, assuming that Mark's audience are also capable of understanding them, even if their understanding is not as in-depth and detailed as that of an audience living in Jerusalem, the epicentre of the Jewish faith. There are many Christological themes in Mark's gospel, but for the sake of brevity, I have selected those I consider to be most important and concentrated on them.
Humanity
In his book “New Testament Theology”, Donald Guthrie writes,
We have in our synoptic gospels three portraits of Jesus of Nazareth, which although differing in many details, are all concerned with the same person. It is only Mark, of the three, who in the opening words gives an indication that he is more than a man, and yet he, more than the others, concentrates on the human Jesus. (Guthrie 1991, p. 221)
However, the words “the Son of God” which appear at the beginning of Mark, are not found in some manuscripts which lead us to suspect that they may not be original. (The exact phrase does appear later in the gospel (15:39), and in slightly different forms elsewhere, though this will be discussed later). Mark although constantly eluding to his point that Jesus is more than a man, keeps reminding the reader that Jesus is still truly a man. Jesus is deeply moved in the presence of human suffering (1:41), called a man (2:7, 15:39), angry with hypocrisy and grieved at the blindness of men's hearts (3:5), astonished at unbelief (6:6), indignant with superficial religiosity and lack of compassion (10:13-14), hungered (11:12), ate food (14:18, 22), had a body (14:8, 15:43, 45) and soul (14:34), was part of a family (3:31, 6:3), was limited in knowledge (13:32), terrified of approaching pain and death (14:33-36), vulnerable to physical pain (14:65, 15:23) and death (15:37). Mark, unlike the other synoptic gospels, does not have a supernatural theory of the Incarnation. Rather it is against the backdrop of a fully human life that Mark paints the picture of the Jesus who is more than what he at first seems to be.
Prophet and Teacher
By the end of the first chapter, Mark has already introduced Jesus as a miracle worker, and a man teaching with authority. In Mark's gospel, the noun didaskalos (teacher) is used twelve times, and the verb didaskein (to teach) is used fifteen times. This emphasis on the teaching of Jesus is concentrated around the 'Kingdom of God' and the 'Son of Man', which will be explained later. He very often teaches using parables, a common didactic tool of his time, which would have made his point obvious to his Jewish hearers. Indeed, Jesus' teaching was very compatible with first century Judaism, and we find striking similarities between his parables and the parables of other religious teachers at the time (Wenham 1989, p. 12. cf. Wright 1996, p. 93). However, very often, his disciples are cast as not understanding, and so Jesus has to explain it to them. Jesus, in his teaching, seems to draw attention to himself and his special relationship (which Mark explains more as the story goes on) to this Kingdom. Indeed, Jesus is conscious of his prophethood (6:4) and is regarded as such by others (6:14-16, 8:27-28). He bears the characteristics of many of the Old Testament prophets in his being driven by the Spirit (1:9-11), supernatural perception (2:8), miracles (1:40-43 et al), divine authority (1:27, 2:10), etc. These supernatural occurrences occur only at the beginning of the story, confirming Jesus as more than an ordinary man and giving divine support to his message.
Kingdom of God
Wright writes that the phrase 'Kingdom of God' was
simply a way of talking about Israel's god becoming king. And when this god became king, the whole world, would at last be put to rights. (Wright 1996, pp. 202-203)
He explains that the theme carried a sense of
the anguished longing of Israel for her covenant god to come in his power and rule the world in the way that he had always intended... YHWH, committed to Israel by an unbreakable covenant, was delaying his decisive act, for reasons best known to himself, though earnestly inquired after by the pious. He was holding back from putting into practice the plan that Israel knew he really had. Since he was the god of all the earth, it was clearly his will to keep his promises to Israel by vindicating her at last over her enemies, and by thus reordering the whole world (ibid. p. 203).
But the theme not only carried the hope that this would happen and the question of the delay, but also an agenda of how Jews could practically work towards bringing about the Kingdom. One only has to briefly look at the history of Israel under foreign conquerers to see how much zealous opposition Israel had to anything which went against the establishment of this Kingdom. Under the Romans, Israel's zeal was stirring for YHWH to remove this oppressive regime from them, perhaps by the hands of His people. Even the age-old Sabbaths carried the eschatological interpretation of this consummate act by the God of Israel. For this reason, Jesus would have attracted much interest in his teachings on the Kingdom, especially when he seemed to point to himself as having a monumental role to play in its establishment.
However, Mark's gospel seems to be unclear over the timing of this Kingdom. It is spoken of as something to come in the future, something already realized, and something which was being presently inaugurated. Although there has been much discussion and debate over the solution to this apparent contradiction, Wright argues that Jesus redefined the Kingdom of God, so that it was indeed present, but not as Israel had expected. YHWH was becoming king through Jesus, and this kingdom would reach it's climax in the battle which he would fight in Jerusalem, and his generation would see that he was right to claim all of this. Even before all these events, Jesus taught that the Kingdom was present where he was (Wright 1996, p. 472).
Son of Man and Son of God
The term 'Son of Man' at first was used as a collective noun for Israel, but by the time of Jesus, it had been re-interpreted to point to an individual. It finds its origin in Daniel 7, where the Son of Man comes from earth, to heaven, vindicated after suffering. 'The coming of the Son of Man' is a metaphor for the defeat of the enemies of the people of YHWH and the vindication of the people themselves (ibid. p.361). By using this term, Jesus is announcing himself as Israel's representative, who will be the Suffering Servant who will be later vindicated by YHWH. The promises which YHWH made to Jerusalem and to Zion, are now transferred to Jesus and his people (ibid. p. 363). In the Book of Enoch, the Son of Man, at the day of YHWH, will be placed on the throne of YHWH by YHWH himself, and will be worshipped. (Bauckham 1996, p. 20; cf. 1 En. 51:3; 46:5; 48:5; 61:8; 62:2-6,9; 69:27,29). The term 'Son of God' was, in the Old Testament, applied to angels, to Israel, to the king, and in later Jewish literature, to the Messiah (Taylor 1959, p. 120). In Mark's gospel, the only person to use this term directly is a Gentile centurion. This is no small point. Many Jews had rejected Jesus as their Messiah, but now the covenant of YHWH was transferred to include both Jew and Gentile, as the Church expanded into the Gentile world. Mark informs his audience that the Son of God's true nature is seen in his suffering, taking upon himself his people's fate, so that he, and they with him, would be vindicated over their enemies and set at God's right hand.
Monday, May 03, 2004
I decree...
1. Daniel's latest post reminded me of how fortunate I am to be surrounded by such sweet, lovely, fun, precious ladies. Only 1 more year do I have in their company though :(
2. There ought to be a search engine for blogspot archives.
3. I just can't figure out what the heck is wrong with my permalinks, and this sucketh.
4. I have no time to blog right now because I have 5 exams coming up between now and June 4 which alone determine my grade for all but 1 of my classes. Don't ask me why I'm blogging now.
1. Daniel's latest post reminded me of how fortunate I am to be surrounded by such sweet, lovely, fun, precious ladies. Only 1 more year do I have in their company though :(
2. There ought to be a search engine for blogspot archives.
3. I just can't figure out what the heck is wrong with my permalinks, and this sucketh.
4. I have no time to blog right now because I have 5 exams coming up between now and June 4 which alone determine my grade for all but 1 of my classes. Don't ask me why I'm blogging now.
