passage of the day: John 3:16-21

This really is such an amazing passage, there is so much here to take in:

John 3:16-21:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.

While I think there can be a few different ways to go with this passage, I like to look at it from the perspective of the missio dei.  I think it has much to contribute to how we know and understand the mission of God.  In fact, I like to look at a lot of the Bible as a whole in the light of salvation history and missio dei.  I don’t own the book but I know Howard Marshall in his NT Theology talks about how New Testament Theology is missionary theology.   I think he is exactly right!  And I think the whole thrust of John’s letters is missional through and through.  Sure there is Christology and other issues but I would say the overall theme of the book is a missional one – it is seen in God giving his only Son, that everyone who believes in his name may not perish but have eternal life.  

What is the missional focus?  God so loved the world he gave his one and only Son.  He sent him not to condemn, but to save.

I think the missional focus of the Fourth Gospel can be supported by the Letters of John.  First John tells us, 

1 John 4:9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.

So i think there is strong support for the missional elements of John (and I am sure the rest of the Gospels too).  It amazes me really.  Hebrews 3:1, too calls Jesus “the apostle and high priest of our confession.”   An Apostle is a missionary, one sent on the behalf of another to accomplish some purpose.  In the case of Jesus is was not to condemn the world, but to save it and see that all have a chance at eternal life.

This missional focus of John I think should be reflected in the mission of the church – that we go out not to condemn but to save.  Those who listen and believe on the name of his one and only son, they shall have eternal life and condemnation will not be on them.  To those who chose not to listen, they will be condemned already, and why?  This is the judgement, the verdict… Jesus has come into the world and those who like that will be drawn to him.  Those who don’t will resist and run to the darkness.

Would those who try to resist eventually be overcome because “light wins?”  Light always wins out over the darkness.  Jesus and his mission will be accomplished because like leven in the dough, the light will spread and the darkness will be overcome by the light (Christ).

Lots of interesting possibilities there!  It’s wonderful really.  :-)

 

David deSilva on the book of Revelation

Over at Matthew D. Montonini’s blog New Testament Perspectives, there is a set of videos of David deSilva lecturing on the book of Revelation that you’ll want to check out.  Here is the first one, you can go to Matt’s blog for the rest!

Be Blessed!

on John 1:14

I was looking at John 1:14 the other day:

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαναὐτοῦ,

δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NIV)

I know this is the central point of the passage, the center line in the chaiastic structure of the passage as it well should be.  It also forms an inclusio with Jn 1:1.  We also refer to this verse when speaking of the Incarnation.

I noticed three things about this verse in relation to the Incarnation that I thought were interesting.  I call them “elements of the Incarnation.”

First I noticed  ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.  The Word became flesh.  God became one of us.  This is significant because there were those in the highly pluralistic audience whom John was writing to who had issues with the flesh and notions of divine incarnation.  There were those who saw all matter, especially bodies as evil and too limiting for divinity to take on.  They believed the spirit was good and matter was evil so how could God become man?  Why would he do that?  John is siding with his Jewish roots and taking a highly affirmative view of both humanity and the human body.  Because Genesis 1 tells us God saw all the he made (including man and woman) and called it good.  The human body, though effected by sin, is good.  Human bodies, however limiting, are are good things and Jesus becoming human, taking on human flesh, fully embodying himself in the world and walking among us, is a very strong affirmation of this truth.

The second thing I noticed was ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαναὐτοῦ.  We have seen his glory.  In Exodus 33: 18 Moses says to YHWH, “Now show me your glory.”  Then YHWH went on to show him his glory in a limited way since he said in the next verse (19) “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”   Whereas in the past one was only able to “see”  God’s glory in the form of the cloud (hence, the shekinah glory), now we see it in it fully in the person of Jesus Christ.  Glory in the Bible includes notions of beauty, splendor, magnificence, radiance, and rapture (Dict of Biblical Imagery).  In other words, it. is. ah-ma-zing!!  It is a quality primarily attributed to God and places of his presence including places of worship and heaven. The glory of the God is an image of his greatness and transcendence.  It is seen in things like the might waterfall verse the small stream; the Sun or the Moon; it is seen in the thunder and lightning verse the rain.  The glory of the Lord is awesome.

Jesus Christ is the glory of God come down in all its fullness – and that in bodily form, a human body.  This is the awesomeness of the incarnation and a huge affirmation of σὰρξ as part of God’s creation.  Glory was associated with Jesus’ birth in Luke 1:14.  He is the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8) and the glory of God is seen in the face of Christ (2 Cor 4:6).

Finally, there is πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.  Full of grace and truth.  John says later in this passage that “we have all received grace in place of grace already given.  For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (TNIV) Jesus Christ is full of grace and truth.  He is the way the truth and the life (Jn 14:6).  Romans 3:24 tells us we are all justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came [through] Jesus Christ.  It is through grace and truth we are saved.  Jesus is the fullness of God’s grace and truth.  I think too it is fair to say the incarnation was an incredibly gracious act on the part of Jesus.  He left the glories if heaven and came down to become one of us – he knew it was the only way.  He is full of grace too.  He came not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through him (Jn 3:17).  Though he has the right to judge he has graciously withheld his judgement that we may come into the light of truth, that he is.  He is full of grace and truth.

So those were some “elements of the incarnation” I saw in that verse I think it is pretty cool really.  Powerful too if you think about it.  And I think too it is something we are called to emulate in our discipleship to Jesus.  We too are to take on an incarnational approach to our relationships with other and as an expression of the People of God in this world.  As we go about our lives and as we go about pursuing God’s salvation to the ends of the earth, we are to be incarnational, living in with and among this world, though not of it, we are to live in it, full of grace and truth.

on the Gospel of Mark

Congratulations to Joel Watts on his new book published by Wipf & Stock.  Looks like it should be a pretty interesting read!

Here is a description from the website:

What if the story of Jesus was meant not just to be told but retold, molded, and shaped into something new, something present by the Evangelist to face each new crisis? The Evangelists were not recording a historical report, but writing to effect a change in their community. Mark was faced with the imminent destruction of his tiny community—a community leaderless without Paul and Peter and who witnessed the destruction of the Temple; now, another messianic figure was claiming the worship rightly due to Jesus. The author of the Gospel of Mark takes his stylus in hand and begins to rewrite the story of Jesus—to unwrite the present, rewrite the past, to change the future.

Joel L. Watts moves the Gospel of Mark to just after the destruction of the Temple, sets it within Roman educational models, and begins to read the ancient work afresh. Watts builds upon the historical criticisms of the past, but brings out a new way of reading the ancient stories of Jesus, and attempts to establish the literary sources of the Evangelist.

I really like that line “to unwrite the present, rewrite the past, to change the future.”  Awesome!  Just from this description I could see a lot of implications for the local church and implications for how it will bring transformation to preaching and teaching as well.  I look forward to when I can get it and read it.  :-)

Good job Joel!

ps. he is doing a giveaway.

Bauckham on the Book of Revelation

Here Ben Witherington talks with Richard Bauckham about the book of Revelation:

on Ephesians and the Center of Paul’s Theology

We’ve all been trained to think the bulk of Paul’s theology is found in Romans, when actually….

http://timgombis.com/2013/01/22/ephesians-not-romans-represents-pauls-theology/

consider the following:

The Christian church—at least in the West, and especially Protestants—has read Paul through the lens of Romans.  We have historically regarded this letter as the center of Paul’s theology.

I don’t think this is right.  Inasmuch as we can speak of a “center” of Paul’s theology and insofar as any extant NT letter represents that, I think Ephesians is a better candidate.  Among other reasons, here are just a few:

First, Romans is situational while Ephesians isn’t.  Paul argues as he does in Romans because he’s trying to resolve a conflict.  Many of his statements are directed to that end, and when they’re taken out of their communicative context and transformed into abstract theological principles, they give a distorted picture of Paul’s theology.

Ephesians, on the other hand, isn’t situational.  It’s probably a circular letter that Paul intended to be read to a range of churches in Asia Minor, informing them of what God has done in Christ and how they can participate in that.  Because Paul writes to give multiple Christian communities a broad understanding, we can say that Ephesians represents Paul’s basic gospel proclamation (i.e., Paul’s “theology”).

Well there is more and it is certainly a provocative post.  I like it!  Let me know what you think.  :-)

 

a thought on “grace”

I recently picked up a copy of Siegfried Schatzmann’s A Pauline Theology of Charismata (Hendrickson, 1987).  It is his PhD dissertation from SWBTS.  It’s a packed 103 pages of reading and highly technical reading on the use of “charismata” in Paul’s letters.  It’s a good work.   As well one should he starts out exploring the etymology of the concept and it is quite interesting.  Consider the following:  (sorry I am not able to access Greek fonts at this time so you will forgive the transliterations and keep reading?  Thx!  :-) )

Xarismata is derived from the root word xaris.  Whereas the former is used sparingly, the latter occurs profusely both in secular Greek literature and in the NT.  Xaris, in the Pauline letters generally translated as “grace,” and xarismata, the unique NT term for “gift,” develop from the stem, xar-.  ”Grace” is probably Paul’s most fundamental concept by which he expresses the event of salvation.  It is crucial to understand, therefore, that “grace” does not, for Paul, convey the notion of God’s disposition or attitude towards mankind but rather God’s gracious “act.”  Rudolf Bultmann appropriately summarizes the foundational character of xaris in Paul as “God’s eschatological deed.”  Paul’s Theology is this appropriately described as “charitocentric”; xaris denotes God’s “fundamental gift of salvation” to humanity.  By no means must this be construed to mean that Paul considered “grace” as God’s generous act in the past only.   Every cursory study of such passages as Rom 3:24, 5:15, and Eph 2:5,8, shows that grace, as God’s eschatological event in Christ, is experienced in the present and also transforms and characterizes existence in the present.  This understanding of xaris, then leads to its correlate, xarismata.  Yet, the further probing into the significance of the relatedness of these terms mus await the exegesis Rom 5:15, 16, and of 6:23.

This is interesting.  So often we talk about grace as God’s unmerited favor towards us, and probably this is true, but as seen in Schatzmann, it in fact refers to God’s act of salavation!

Yes, this is interesting.

God (through the Holy Spirit) is (still) at work!

came across an article today on the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments and the author, Donald L Tucker, in his conclusion to his survey of the Spirit in the Bible, discusses some implications for today and his first point I thought was really a really great one for consideration.  He writes:

So, what does all of this quick panorama of the Spirit in the Old and New Testament mean today? Well, first of all, we need to recognize that God is at work. Even today, the Spirit still moves, although sometimes mysteriously.

We expect the Spirit to speak in a gentle whisper, a still small voice, but it comes as a roaring wind. Sometimes God breaks in through the violent and unexpected, the alien and unusual. Remember: The Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness (Mark 4); the Spirit grabbed Ezekiel by the hair and lifted him to his feet (8:3)⁴; Philip was removed from a flourishing evangelistic campaign to preach to only one man and was supernaturally transported from one place to another (Acts 8:9-40).

You may not control the Spirit: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:8, NIV). You may not control the Spirit, but you do well to let the Spirit take control of you. Sometimes it’s unpredictable, even unbelievable-healings that can’t be explained, supernatural intervention and protection, baptism in the Spirit and speaking of unlearned languages. These mean that the Spirit of God is still at work!

I don’t know about you all, but really, this is one of the reasons I am sticking to my guns being a Pentecostal.   One of the core beliefs of Pentecostals is our belief in and heavy reliance upon the Person and work of the Holy Spirit, that the work of the Spirit via the Church and the gifts to which he imparts the Church are still for today and still quite active!  I mean, really what would we do without the Holy Spirit in our lives as Christians trying our best to live in discipleship to Jesus and carrying on his mission in the world?  Come Holy Spirit!

New (to me) Blog

I just made a new friend in the blogging world.  You know, it really is truly a global world we live in anymore.  John is from India, and is quite well learned.  You can read about him on his about page, but he has a good blog – you should follow him.

http://ntscholarship.wordpress.com

Blessings!

Dave Black’s Paul, Apostle of Weakness

is now up on Amazon.  Here is a snippet from Chapter 5 that he posted on his blog:

In another vein, Paul can also use the words in several instances in the specific sense of bodily weakness, i.e., physical illness, thus approximating the fundamental usage common to all literature in antiquity. He clearly uses the root for sickness with reference to Epaphroditus (Phil 2:26-27), Timothy (1 Tim 5:23), and Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20), his close companions in the gospel ministry. Paul probably uses the root for sickness with reference to himself when he speaks of an “infirmity of the flesh” as the cause for his initial preaching of the gospel among the Galatians (Gal 4:13).

If we are correct in concluding that Paul is referring to a physical infirmity, we can think of this weakness as a particular disease or ailment, the specific diagnosis of which is, however, a mystery. Cases of illness among Christians in NT times indicate that the apostolic commission to heal (cf. Mark 16:18) could not be effected indiscriminately to heal oneself or one’s friends. Normal means of healing were available for Timothy’s gastric problem, for instance; and even in the company of Paul Trophimus became too ill to travel any further.

The classical Pauline passage on illness (2 Cor 12:7-10) is in this respect most striking of all, in that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” remained with the apostle despite even the most intensive prayer for its removal. Paul states three reasons for its existence: to keep him from becoming proud because of his revelations and visions (v. 7); to enable him to experience the power of Christ (v. 9); and to teach him the true purpose of hardships, persecutions, and personal difficulties (v. 10). Indeed, the entire passage is concerned more with the power and grace of the Lord than with the weakness of the apostle. Physical infirmity is evidence that the body “is sown in weakness” (1 Cor 15:43) and is a cogent reminder of the creature’s dependence upon the Creator. In this respect, the case of Paul is remarkably like that of Jacob, who learned to depend totally upon God only after he had been inflicted with a physical injury (Gen 32:24–32).

These instances of illness show that the real issue in the matter of human suffering is our relationship to God rather than our own physical condition, as painful as it may be.

Dave is going through a difficult time right now with his wife Becky being so ill and in the hospital (all this you can read about on his blog)m he doesn’t just write this stuff, he lives it – be lifting them up in prayer and show your support and encouragement to him by buying a book and sharing about it on your own blog!