Dennis Ingolfsland

A Review of Jesus Research

2011-11-21T18:58:00.000-08:00

This year I was invited to present a paper to the Synoptic Gospels Study Group at the annual convention of the Evangelical Theological Society in San Francisco. My assignment was to critique the book, A Review of Jesus Research, edited by James Charlesworth, Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton University. Dr. Charlesworth is also a noted Jesus scholar and one of the world's foremost experts on Pseudepigrapha. The following is the paper I presented. Dr. Charlesworth was on hand to critique my paper.

A Review of Jesus Research
Dennis Ingolfsland
Crown College

Overview

The book, Jesus Research,[1] contains the proceedings of the first Princeton-Prague Symposium on the study of the Historical Jesus.[2] The purpose of this symposium was to evaluate the current state of Jesus Research since, as Charlesworth notes, the perceived consensus of the 80’s has “collapsed into a chaos of opinions.”[3]

After summarizing the history of the quests for the historical Jesus, Charlesworth says that “In 1985 something new began to appear,” which he has termed, “Jesus Research.” His book includes discussions of improved methodologies, refined perspectives, fresh sources, topography and archaeology.

According to Charlesworth all the contributors to Jesus Research agreed, to varying degrees, that Jesus should be studied within the world of Second Temple Judaism, that the Evangelists altered their sources in light of their own theology, that presentations of Jesus were distorted by confessionalism and anti-Semitism, and finally, that Jesus research is possible.[4]

Because the book was written by twelve different authors, I will not attempt to critique each one but will highlight some of the insights I particularly appreciated, followed by an examination of a couple issues I’d like to explore in more detail.

Commendation

Overall, I found the book to be informative and thought provoking. I appreciated the chapter by Craig Evans which argued that the subversive way in which Jesus interpreted Scripture goes back to Jesus himself and is not just a product of the early church. I agreed with Gerd Theissen’s final, almost offhand observation that when “Jesus sent out his disciples in pairs, there was…an informal ‘social control’ on conformity with his message” and that this “created the basis for passing on his message after his death.”[5] I only wish Theissen had elaborated on this topic further[6] in order to address the question posed by Charlesworth in the introduction, “Is it true that oral tradition is unreliable…?”[7]

I appreciated the fact that all contributors to this book agreed that Jesus should be studied within the context of Second Temple Judaism.[8] Charlesworth in particular emphasized the devout Jewishness of Jesus and the way in which recent archaeological discoveries have supported Jesus’ Jewishness in general and the historical reliability of the Gospel of John in particular. Charlesworth used concrete examples to compare old paradigms in Jesus research with new paradigms, noting that “more advances have been achieved in biblical research over the past twenty-five years than in the preceding 250 years.”[9]

For example, Charlesworth points out that under the “old paradigm” the assumption was that “Second Temple Judaism was orthodox, monolithic, cut off from other cultures…and defined by four sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots.”[10] Under the “new paradigm” the discovery of “more than 900 documents…within the Qumran corpus” and “65 documents in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” shows that the actual situation was much more complicated and nuanced.

Under the “old paradigm” the Gospel of John was often assumed not to be a Jewish composition whereas the new paradigm views John as a “very Jewish work.”[11] Further, as Charlesworth points out, archaeology has shown that John’s knowledge of such areas as the Pool of Siloam, the Pool of Bethesda with its five porticoes, “Herod’s expanded Temple area,” and Pilate’s judgment seat demonstrate that the author had significant knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem.[12] Claussen also defended the reliability of John’s gospel, refuting claims that the story about Jesus’ turning of water into wine was dependent on earlier Jewish or pagan sources. He used the wedding at Cana to argue that John’s theology is firmly rooted in history.[13]

Jens Schroter argued persuasively (and contrary to some of the more radical Jesus scholars) that the Galilee of Jesus’ time was thoroughly Jewish. Even Tiberius and Sepphoris which exhibit significant Hellenistic influence were not nearly as Hellenistic as Gentile cities in regions bordering Galilee. One of the implications Schroter draws from this is that the controversies surrounding Jewish purity laws and Sabbath observance reflect a “milieu shaped by Jewish life in the Galilean villages and thus certainly differ from the time of the Gospel’s composition, when the Jesus’ movement had already expanded into an urban context.”[14] Schroter also notes that Jesus ministry “into the Decapolis and the coastal region…is quite plausible for the 20s of the first century, but scarcely conceivable during the period when the Gospels were written….”[15]

I was particularly intrigued by some of the insights discussed by Tom Holmen and Michael Wolter relating to Jesus’ self-understanding.[16] For example, Holmen argues from Zechariah 13:1 and Ezekiel 47:1 that the altar of the temple “functioned as a distributor of purity” and that “it was accepted as the ‘fountain opened for…the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and impurity.” He discusses the fact that the Gospels do not present Jesus as becoming defiled by contact with those who were unclean, but rather “he appears to function just like the altar of the temple which by mere touch could render people clean.”[17] Holmen says he doesn’t want to press this analogy, but the analogy needs to be pressed. If Jesus believed that he had the same power as the altar of the Temple, as Holmen suggests, what precisely was Jesus claiming?[18]

Wolter argues that “The earthly establishment of the Rule of God is accompanied by a theophany” and that “the expectation of the Rule of God is linked with the expectation of the direct presence of God in person” (emphasis is his).[19] According to Wolter, “Jesus claims for himself something that in the basic eschatological stock of knowledge of his milieu was reserved exclusively for God.”[20]

So according to Holmen Jesus considered himself to be able to personally cleanse people from sin and impurity, a power attributed to the altar of the Temple. And according to Wolter Jesus claims something for himself that “was reserved exclusively for God.[21] I’m interested, therefore, to know about Dr. Charlesworth’s view of Jesus’ self-understanding in general, and of these two views in particular.[22]

Critique

There are a couple of topics I’d like to explore in more depth. First is Petr Pokorny’s contention that Jesus divided John’s students over outreach strategy. Second is Charlesworth’s conception of the Jewishness of Jesus.

First, Pokorny asks “why Jesus divided the group of John’s students”[23] and “What is the difference in their teaching”?[24] He argues from Luke 7:18-35 // Matthew 11:18-19[25] that Jesus interpreted the final judgment of God in a positive way rather than “shocking people” with the preaching of judgment as John had done.[26]

Pokorny argues that John’s clothing and ascetic lifestyle was undoubtedly “a prophetic sign for the society of his time…(2 Kgs 1:8)” which corresponds to John’s preaching of repentance, coming judgment, the axe at the root of the tree and the chaff being burned.[27] He says that John’s intention was to shock his contemporaries with warnings of God’s impending judgment.[28]

Jesus, on the other hand, “is described as one who eats and drinks too much, as a ‘glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”[29] Jesus “participated in table fellowships” in which he announced sins forgiven, or that “salvation has come to this house.”[30] Pokorny concludes that Jesus’ strategy of salvation was different than John’s and that “The deepest reason for Jesus’ parting from John was obviously here, in the general strategy of salvation and reform.”[31]

Although in the end, Pokorny acknowledges that in Jesus’ sayings there is “a strong motif of apocalyptic judgment against individual groups,”[32] he still concludes that “Instead of shocking the people by proclaiming the judgment of God,” Jesus “interpreted God’s ultimate judgment positively.”[33] Pokorny views this difference as being so great that it divided the ministries of Jesus and John.

I think this seriously downplays the extent and significance of the strong preaching of judgment in Jesus’ ministry. Like John, Jesus was also a fiery preacher who warned of judgment and called for repentance.[34] According to passages spread throughout the Gospels, Jesus’ warnings were every bit as dire as the Baptist’s, if not more so. The Jesus of the Gospels warned that it is better to go through life maimed than to be thrown with two hands, feet and eyes into hell where the “worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:43-48 // Mt 5:28-30; 18:8-9). He warned people not to fear those who could kill the body, but rather to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28 // Lk 12:4-5). He said it would be more tolerable on judgment day for Sodom and Gomorrah than for towns that rejected his message, and on numerous occasions he warned of a “furnace of fire” or “eternal fire,” and of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (see Mark,[35] Q,[36] M,[37] L,[38] and John[39]).

Since Pokorny agrees that in Jesus’ sayings there is “a strong motif of apocalyptic judgment against individual groups,”[40] I’ll not belabor this point further (except in the endnotes cited above). Suffice it to say that we have more solid historical evidence for proclaiming Jesus as a fiery preacher of judgment than we do for John, for which the primary evidence comes from Q. If Jesus was a disciple of John, as Pokorny believes, it would be more reasonable to argue that Jesus got his fiery apocalyptic preaching from John than to argue that this is what separated them.[41]

I must confess that I have devoted special attention to Pokorny because it seems to me that his thesis adds support to popular Christian culture (or at least in what seems to be the theology of some of my students) in which Jesus seems to have been re-imagined as the ultimate example of one who is completely non-judgmental, all-understanding, and infinitely tolerant (though I’m sure that is not what Pokorny intended). I do not think such a view is supported in the Gospels or was true of the historical Jesus.[42]

Second, I wholeheartedly agree with Charlesworth in his insistence on the Jewishness of Jesus. Charlesworth writes, “Jesus must not be understood over against Judaism, nor should we talk about ‘Jesus and Judaism’; Jesus is to be studied within Judaism….”[43] Charlesworth writes of “Jesus’ deep Jewish devotion” and says that he “affirmed the Torah as the revelation of God’s will.”[44] He says the idea that Jesus broke the commandments and did not honor the Shabbat is misinformed. On the contrary, Jesus kept the Passover and taught in the Temple calling it, “My Father’s House.” Jesus’ disciples, James and John, continued their worship in the Temple even after Jesus’ death.[45]

Charlesworth contends that even the terms “Christian” and “church” “are clearly anachronistic within first-century phenomena.”[46] He says that those labeled “Christians” in Acts 11:26 would not have been pleased with the title and that “The term ‘Christianity’—which is too often understood as an antithesis to Judaism—is thus revealed as misleading in describing first-century religious phenomena.”[47] Charlesworth concludes, “My point now is simply to point out that to claim we can talk about ‘Jews’ and ‘Christians’ in the first century is anachronistic and distorts our attempts at reconstructing first-century Palestinian society.” [48]

I agree with Charlesworth on the Jewishness of Jesus, and yet I have to wonder whether, in a rightful emphasis on the Jesus’ Jewishness, this emphasis does not downplay the very real differences between first century Jews in general, and the first century Jesus movement. I’m sure that Charlesworth would agree that there was some degree of discontinuity between the two groups,[49] but I am interested in exploring the extent of that discontinuity. For example, nearly everyone acknowledges that Jesus was at odds with the religious leadership but I’ve found relatively few who point out that Jesus’ condemnation was not just directed at religious leaders.

For example, in passages assigned to Q, Jesus attacks not just the Jewish leaders, but his entire generation for their condemnation of both John and Jesus (Lk 7:31-35//Mt 11:16-19). Jesus speaks of an “evil generation” that asks for a sign (Lk 11:29//Mt:12:39; 16:4).[50] At the final judgment, according to Q, even the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon will rise up and condemn the Jewish villages that rejected Jesus (Lk 10:13-15 // Mt 11:20-24).[51] In fact, the Jesus of Q apparently considers his generation so evil that even the Gentiles of Nineveh and the Queen of the South will condemn it (Lk 11:31-32//Mt 12:42, 41).

According to Mark, Jesus addresses anyone—not just religious leaders—who would be ashamed of him[52] in what he calls, “this adulterous and sinful generation” (Mk 8:38). [53] Jesus called his generation a faithless generation[54] (Parallels in both Matthew and Luke read “faithless and perverse generation” (Mk 9:19/Mt 17:17//Lk 9:41) and he seemed to express exasperation with them asking, “how long shall I put up with you” (Mk 9:19 // Mt 17:17 // Lk 9:41)?

Jesus’ condemnation of his generation is found not just in Mark and Q but also in material unique to Matthew (M) in which Jesus calls it an evil generation (Mt. 12:45) and warns that “the sons of the kingdom”—not just religious leaders—“would be thrown into outer darkness” where people would “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 8:12).[55]

In material unique to Luke (L) Jesus predicts that he will be rejected—not just by the Jewish leadership—but by “this generation” (Lk 17:25). Haacker contends that it was the memory of the rebellious wilderness generation under Moses that was the background for Jesus’ condemnation of his own generation.[56]

In John’s gospel Jesus proclaims that “Everyone who does evil hates the light” (Jn 3:20).[57] Jesus declares that it is the world, not just religious leaders, that hates him because he testifies “that what it does is evil” (John 7:7; 15:18, cf. 17:14).[58] John would have us understand that during the feast of booths, Jesus told a crowd in the Temple that “not one of you keeps the law” (Jn 7:19).[59] Since, in Jesus Research, both Charlesworth and Claussen argued for the reliability of John, these passages should not be automatically dismissed as products of the Johannine community, especially since the sayings cohere well with what we find in the Synoptics.[60]^{, [61]}

In other words, according to tradition in Mark, Q, M, L and John, Jesus set himself apart from many of his Jewish contemporaries and offered a strong condemnation of them. I have no doubt that more radical critics, like those of the Jesus Seminar, for example,[62] could dissect each of my supporting passages and provide arguments for why they must be attributed to an anti-Semitic church rather than to Jesus.[63] I have been persuaded by Dale Allison, however, who argues that:

If general impressions are typically more trustworthy than details, then it makes little sense to reconstruct Jesus by starting with a few of the latter—perhaps some incidents and sayings that survive the gauntlet of our authenticating criteria—while setting aside the general impressions that our primary sources instill in us.[64]

Allison continues,

…certain themes, motifs, and rhetorical strategies recur again and again throughout the primary sources; and it must be in those themes and motifs and rhetorical strategies—which, taken together, leave some distinct impressions—if it is anywhere, that we will find memory.[65]

My point is that even if individual passages I have used to support my argument are challenged, there seems to be a strong theme in Mark, M, L, Q and John that present Jesus as a fiery apocalyptic preacher who called everyone in Israel to repentance, not just the religious leadership and, contrary to Pokorny, not just “individual groups.”[66]

Although all of the earliest Christians were Jews, the discontinuity and tension between Jews in general and the early Jesus movement did not disappear after the resurrection.[67] The writer of First Peter, for example, contrasts Jews who “stumble because they disobey the message” (1 Pet 2:8) with his readers “in Christ” (1 Pet 5:14) whom he calls “a spiritual house,” “a chosen people” a “holy” and “royal priesthood,” who offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (1 Pet 2:5-9).

The writer of Hebrews, provides an extended discussion on how the Levitical priesthood and the entire sacrificial system is replaced by a new and “a better covenant” (Heb 7:22; 8:8),[68] with an entirely new priesthood and a new High Priest who serves in the “true tabernacle” (Heb 8:2)[69] which is a “greater and more perfect tabernacle” (Heb 9:11).[70] It is hard to imagine how the fault line between the first century Jewish Jesus movement and their Jewish brothers and sisters could have been made any more clear (or offensive). Yet if the writer of Hebrews had been anti-Semitic it is hard to understand why he would have included his long list of Jewish heroes of faith in chapter 11—men and women whom the writer obviously holds in highest esteem.[71]^{, [72]}

Similarly, Paul pulls no punches in describing the animosity between Jews and the early Jesus movement. His own testimony is that as a zealous Jew he once “persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it” (Galatians 1:13).[73] Paul contrasts the new covenant which he calls “a ministry of righteousness” and “ministry of the Spirit” with what he calls the “ministry of death” and “ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:3-9). Indeed, Paul’s rhetoric against his fellow Jews could hardly be more offensive when he charges that they killed Jesus and the prophets, and that they displease God by hindering Paul and his group from speaking to Gentiles (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16a).[74]^{, [75]}Even though all of the very earliest Christians were Jewish, there seems to have been considerable discontinuity (and even animosity) between first century Jews and the first century Jesus movement.

Many have argued that statements like the ones I have quoted above are not reflective of the historical Jesus but are evidence of the anti-Semitic nature of the early church.[76] It must be remembered, however, that Paul’s statements come from a man who proudly boasts of his Jewish heritage[77] and says that his heart’s desire is that fellow Jews would be saved (Rom 10:1).[78] In fact, in an amazing expression of love, Paul says he would be willing to be eternally condemned if that would somehow save his Jewish brothers and sisters (Rom 9:2-3; cf. 10:1). This is certainly not someone who is anti-Semitic!

In fact, as others have pointed out, the kind of strong Jewish self-critique[79] found in the New Testament—far from being anti-Semitic—is actually characteristic of ancient Judaism. For example, the Torah portrays the Children of Israel as rebellious and hard-hearted, a “crooked and twisted generation,” a “foolish and senseless people” who are “no longer his [God’s] children” (e.g. Ex 15:24; 16:2-3; 17:2-4; Lev 26:41; Num 14:1-44; 20:3-5; Dt 31:15-18; 32:5-6). Similarly, Isaiah calls the people of Judah “offspring of evildoers,” a “sinful nation” who are “laden with iniquity” (Isa 1:4). He even calls Jerusalem the city that “has become a whore” (Isa 1:21).[80]

Jeremiah accuses both Israel and Judah of being a “foolish and senseless people” (Jer 5:21) who have “stubborn and rebellious” hearts (Jer 5:23).[81] Hosea says “There is no faithfulness of steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land” but rather “there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery…”(Hos 4:1-2).[82] Examples from the prophets could literally go on for pages.[83]

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writer of the Habakkuk Pesher condemns Jerusalem priests who “accumulate riches and loot from plundering the peoples.”[84] Similarly, the Nahum Pesher condemns the wicked people of Judah and Ephraim who “walk in treachery and lies.”[85] In the Rule of the Community the faithful are instructed to “detest all the sons of darkness”[86] who, as Charlesworth points out, were Jews, not Gentiles.[87]^{, [88]}

In the Apocrypha, the writer of First Maccabees condemns fellow Jews who had forsaken the Covenant, calling them godless, lawless, malcontents, and renegades who hated their nation.[89] The writer of Baruch explains that the Jews were conquered by their enemies because they angered and provoked God by sacrificing to demons and because they “turned away from the law of God” and “had no regard for his statues.”[90]

In the Pseudepigrapha, the writer of Forth Ezra claims to be speaking for God saying, “Go and declare to my people their evil deeds, and to their children the iniquities which they have committed against me….”[91] In Jubilees, God speaks of his people’s rebelliousness and stubbornness,[92] declaring that they will “forget all of my commandments” and “persecute those who search out the Law,” and that they “do evil in my sight.”[93] Just as the Gospels record that Jesus spoke of outer darkness and fiery judgment, so also the writer of First Enoch speaks of outer darkness[94] and fiery judgment.[95] The Jesus of the Gospels tells Judas that it would have been better for him not to have been born (Mk 14:21//Mt 26:24). Similarly, First Enoch says that when sinners face the judgment for their sins, “It would have been better for them not to have been born.”[96] According to Matthew 23 Jesus pronounces “woes” on the scribes and Pharisees.[97] Enoch also pronounces woes on Jews that the author perceives to be sinners.[98]

My point is that while I agree completely with Charlesworth on the Jewishness of Jesus, and while I agree with Pokorny on the importance of table fellowship and God’s grace in the ministry of Jesus, there was apparently much within Jesus’ contemporary Jewish culture[99] with which he was not pleased. Like Jewish prophets and writers before and after him, Jesus found it necessary to strongly condemn the sinfulness of his generation, to warn them of coming judgment, and to call his generation—not just the religious leaders or individual groups—to repentance.

According to Charlesworth, all of the authors in Jesus Research agreed that the presentations of Jesus in the Gospels were distorted by anti-Semitism,[100] but I would argue that this view fails to do justice to the true Jewishness of Jesus in the context of a long history of self-critique by Jewish prophets and writers.[101]

My agenda for spending so much time on this issue stems from my concern that because of the church’s disgraceful history of anti-Semitism,[102] and because of the horrors of the holocaust, Christians are rightly eager to distance themselves from that history,[103] but in so doing we may be distorting history (and theology) by downplaying the significant tradition of apocalyptic judgment pronounced by Jesus against his generation.[104] We seem to want to let first century Jews off the hook.

By contrast, John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul don’t seem to have let their contemporaries off the hook any more than did the Jewish prophets before them.[105] In fact, I’m sure Paul would say that both Jews and Gentiles are on the same hook![106] As Paul writes, “For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written, None is righteous, no not one” (Rom 3:10). Paul concludes that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23) and Paul believes this conclusion is supported by Jewish Scripture.[107]

In Jesus within Judaism, Charlesworth writes,

“Both the Woes and the Beatitudes in the Gospels probably derive from Jesus, and indicate that he inherited from contemporary Judaism both God’s judgment (1 Bar, 4Ezra) and his forgiveness (PrMan). Yet he replaced the stress on a distant, vengeful God about to annihilate the wicked—Jews and Gentiles—with an emphasis on a present, forgiving Father who wished repentance from all Jews.[108]

So after all this, perhaps I am just quibbling with Pokorny and Charlesworth on where to put the emphasis in Jesus’ preaching. They place the emphasis on Jesus’ love and compassion while I tend to think Jesus emphasized—as Paul might have put it—both the goodness and severity of God (cf. Rom 11:22).[109] The difference in emphasis may seem trivial, but I think it has significant implications for how the Gospel is preached. For example, in the last 20 years I’ve heard many, many sermons on the love of Jesus. I don’t recall a single one on Jesus’ preaching of judgment.[110]

The topic of Jesus’ relation to Judaism is one that has occupied Dr. Charlesworth for over twenty years, not only in the book under review but also in his other books like Jesus within Judaism, Jesus’ Jewishness,[111] and Jews and Christians,[112] so I am interested to know to what extent, if any, he agrees with my critique and, if we disagree, whether he sees the disagreement as significant or as merely a matter of emphasis.

Conclusion

I found Jesus Research to be fascinating, challenging and thought provoking. I want to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Keylock for inviting me to be part of this discussion, and I consider it a great honor to have the opportunity to interact with Dr. Charlesworth—an internationally renowned scholar whom I greatly admire.

[1] Charlesworth, James H. and Petr Pokorny, Jesus Research (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2009).

[2] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 1.

[3] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 1.

[4] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 14.

[5] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 122.

[6] Instead Theissen spends most of his time on an extended comparison of Jesus with Judas the Galilean, which I thought was sometimes a stretch. For example, Judas the Galilean is the only model of itinerancy contemporary with Jesus that Theissen can find. Josephus doesn’t describe Judas as itinerant but Theissen infers Judas’ itinerancy from the fact that he originally came from the Gaulanitis but was later called Judas the Galilean. Rather than understanding this merely as a change of residence, Theissen assumes that Judas was itinerant because to spread his anti-tax message he would have to be itinerant (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 110). This seems to be quite a stretch. Not everyone whose message became popular was itinerant, e.g. John the Baptist. As another example, Theissen writes, “In my view, it is historically fairly certain that Jesus had to distance himself from the teachings of Judas Galilaeus. This is shown by the discussion about the payment of taxes (Mark 12:13-17)” (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 114). Although it may be possible that Jesus tried to distance his teaching from that of Judas, to say that this is “fairly certain” is going beyond what the evidence will support.

[7] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 4.

[8] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 14.

[9] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 56, 58.

[10] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 58.

[11] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 60-61.

[12] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 61-66.

[13] For example, Claussen writes, “It takes place in Cana in Galilee ‘on the third day’ (2:1). By referring to Jesus’ mother (2:1, 3-5, 12), brothers (2:12) and disciples (2:2, 12) the story is connected to earlier references to his home in Nazareth (1:45-46), the calling of the first disciples, and implicitly also his father Joseph (1:45). The description of the wedding may allow a comparison to Jewish wedding customs of that time. Finally, the stone jars may be similar to those found at a number of sites by modern day archaeologists” (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 89).

[14] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 50.

[15] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 51.

[16] Space did not permit adding Haacker to this discussion. Haacker argues persuasively that “kingdom of God” and “life” were often used as equivalent ideas in the Gospels and that entering the kingdom or life carried the idea of salvation. Haacker then convincingly links the words used in Jesus’ offer of the kingdom or salvation[16] with the words used for God’s offer of the kingdom or salvation in the Old Testament.[16] Haacker concludes that “Jesus had to die in order to make clear beyond doubt that his message was about an eschatological salvation....” (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 153). But even in Jesus’ time people weren’t generally killed just because their message was about eschatological salvation. On the other hand, if Jesus was claiming to personally offer something that only God could grant, that may help to explain the violent reaction to his ministry.

[17] Holmen traces this thinking back to Jesus himself and not just to the creative theology of the early church (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 220-221).

[18] In Matthew 12:1-8 Jesus proclaims his lordship even over the Sabbath saying, “Something greater than the temple is here.” Since this phrase is not in the parallels in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5 it would undoubtedly be seen by many as a Matthean redaction, still, it would seem that Matthew’s Jesus proclaimed himself to be greater than the temple. Although Holmen doesn’t cite this passage, Matthew 12:1-8 would seem to support Holemen’s argument.

[19] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 137.

[20] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 138. Although Wolter didn’t cite First Enoch, I wonder if, in Wolter’s view, Jesus would have considered himself to be fulfilling the words of First Enoch: “The God of the Universe, the Holy Great One, will come forth from his dwelling. And from there he will march upon Mount Sinai and appear in his camp emerging from heaven with a might power” (1 Enoch, Book 1, 1:3-4). Or in chapter 25: “This tall mountain which you saw whose summit resembles the throne of God is (indeed) his throne, on which the Holy and Great Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit when he descends to visit the earth with goodness” (1 Enoch 25:3-5). See also the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs which says: “Through his kingly power God will appear [dwelling among men on earth] to save the race of Israel (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: Naphtali, 8:3).

[21] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 138.

[22] Although Form Critics once assumed that such thinking must be attributed to the early church, Charlesworth wisely observes, “For 200 years, New Testament experts have tended to assume that the great theological and Christological masterpieces in the New Testament corpus must be dated late…This penchant must be exposed as absurd” since it “would mean that Jesus, Paul and the earliest thinkers in the Palestinian Jesus movement were not advanced and that we need to wait decades for brilliance” (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 68).

[23] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 172. Like most scholars, Pokorny assumes that Jesus was a disciple of John and that there must have been a break between them. Pokorny cites Mark 1:9-11 and its parallels in support of this assertion (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 171), but Mark 1:9-11 says nothing about Jesus being a disciple of John. According to Meier, the idea that Jesus was a disciple of John is based on inferences drawn from John 1:35-44 and John 3:26-30. Meier notes the irony that while many critics accept as fact the idea that Jesus was a disciple of John, the idea is based on “the Gospel that is usually shunted aside as unreliable for reconstructing the historical Jesus.” Although Meier concludes that the Jesus probably did follow John for a short time, Meier argues that “Jesus, Andrew, and Philip (John 1:35-37, 40, 43-44) were probably not the only Jews around the Baptist who moved in and out of his ambit” and “As far as we know no one who received John’s baptism was obliged ipso facto to do so permanently. Hence talk of ‘defection’ or ‘apostasy’ from John’ inner circle is questionable, since the group of people around John may well have been largely unstructured and impermanent” (Meier, John. A Marginal Jew [Volume 3. New York : Doubleday] 117-118). The point is that Pokorny’s entire thesis seems to be on a thin foundation from the start.

[24] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 172.

[25] He argues, rightly in my view, that the text regarding John being demon-possessed and Jesus being a drunken glutton is undoubtedly authentic since “adherents of Jesus would never have invented a saying that slanders Jesus” like this (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 173.

[26] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 180. Charlesworth makes a similar statement in his book, Jesus within Judaism: “The apocalyptists tend to be vengeful, often calling upon God to destroy Jews’ enemies. Jesus was more concerned with inward dispositions and an attitude of compassion and outgoing love (but see 2En 52)” (Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism. [New York : Doubleday, 1988] 38). I agree that Jesus was “concerned with inward dispositions and an attitude of compassion…” but, as I argue later in this paper, I detect more of the apocalyptists’ fervor in Jesus than is often recognized.

[27] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 175.

[28] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 176. According to passages assigned to Q, John called his audience a “brood a vipers,” spoke of the “wrath to come” and warned them to “Bear fruit that befits repentance.” John warned of coming judgment in which “the ax is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Mt 3.7-10 // Lk 3.7-9). John says that the wheat would be gathered into the granary, but the chaff would be burned with “unquenchable fire.” Mark 1.4, followed by Matthew 3.1-2 and Luke 3.2-3 records that John preached “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” and that he confronted Herod about being married to the wife of Herod’s brother (Mk 6.17-18 // Mt 14.4, cf. Lk 3.19). That’s pretty much all we have on John’s preaching of judgment. Josephus records none of John’s fiery preaching saying only that he was a good man and explaining why Herod had him executed (Ant. 18.5). By contrast, we have much more on Jesus’ warnings of judgment.

[29] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 176.

[30] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 176.

[31] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 177-178.

[32] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 179.

[33] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 180.

[34] See Mk 1:14; Mt 4:17; Lk 3:3.

[35] In Mark, followed by Matthew, Jesus warned that it is better to go through life maimed than to be thrown with two hands, feet and eyes into hell where the “worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched (Mk 9:43-48 // Mt 5:29-30, 18:8-9). Jesus told scribes and Pharisees they would receive “greater condemnation” for their hypocritical show of piety (Mt 23:14 // Mk 12:40 // Lk 20:47). He told a parable about the owner of a vineyard who would deal with his rebellious tenants by destroying them and giving the vineyard to others (Mk 12:8-9 // Lk 20:15 // Mt 21:41).

[36] In Q passages Jesus warned people not to fear those who could kill the body, but rather to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28 // Lk 12:4-5). He said that Capernaum would be brought down to Hades (Mt 11:21-24 // Lk 10:12-15) and that it would be more tolerable on judgment day for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. In a parable about a faithful and unfaithful servant, Jesus warned that the servant’s master would come unexpectedly and punish him with the hypocrites where “men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 24:50-51 // Lk 12:46). Jesus’ parable of the Talents ends with the worthless servant being cast into outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 25:14-3). The parable of the minas (Lk 19:11-27) is similar (the two parables usually assigned to Q) but ends slightly differently with the nobleman demanding the execution of his enemies. Either way, it is a theme of judgment (On the flaws in Kloppenberg’s theory of the stratification of Q in which he would assign all such judgmental passages to the second edition of Q, see my article, “Kloppenborg’s Stratification of Q and its Significance for Historical Jesus Studies.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society [46/2 June, 2003] 217-232).

[37] Matthew’s unique material (M) is even more shocking.[37] Jesus warned that “the sons of the kingdom would be thrown into outer darkness” where people would “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 8:12). In fact, he said it will “be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah” than for the town that rejects his message (Mt 10:18). Speaking of the judgment at the end of the age, Jesus warned that the angels would “gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42, cf. 49-50 and 22:13). At the final judgment Jesus separates the “sheep” from the “goats” telling the latter, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angel (Mt 25:41, cf. 46). With regard to fiery preaching, what Matthew 23 records of Jesus far exceeds anything recorded about the Baptizer when Jesus calls the religious leaders greedy self-indulgent fools who are hypocrites, blind guides, whitewashed tombs and children of hell (Mt 23:15-17; cf. Lk 11:42-44)!

[38] In material unique to Luke (L), Jesus says the unfaithful servant who knew his master’s will but did not act accordingly, would receive a “severe beating” (Lk 12:47). Jesus warned his audience that unless they repent, they would perish like those Galileans who were slaughtered by Herod or like those who died when the tower of Siloam fell (Lk 13:5). Jesus warned his Jewish audience that one day workers of evil would find themselves shut out and be ordered to depart to a place where they would weep and gnash their teeth (Lk 13:28). In his parable of the Great Banquet, Jesus warned that none of those invited would taste of the banquet (Lk 14:24, cf. Mt 22:13). Finally, Jesus told a story about a rich man who died, was buried and was in anguish and torment in the flames of Hades (Lk 16:22-24).

[39] The judgmental tone of Jesus’ message recorded in the Synoptics can also be found in John where Jesus is recorded as saying that those who do not believe in him are “condemned already” since they “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (Jn 3:18-19). Jesus spoke of those who have done evil coming out of the tombs to “resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:28-29). He reportedly told his antagonists that it was Moses who accuses them (Jn 5:38-45). Jesus called his contemporaries liars who do not know God and he charged that the devil, not God, was their father (Jn 8:19, 42-44, 55). Jesus said they would die in their sin (Jn 8:21).

[40] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 179.

[41] In Jesus Research, Theissen argued that Jesus was itinerant, and I would argue that stories of table fellowship would be expected more in the life of one like Jesus who traveled from village to village than in the life of one like John who ate locusts in the desert.

[42] Jens Schroter argued that those who “imply a fundamental re-orientation in Jesus’ separation from John…are creating an impression that is incorrect. In spite of its own particular emphasis, Jesus’ ministry by no means departs from the conceptual framework it shares with that of John. This is characterized by the conviction that God’s judgment is eminent; simply belonging to Israel is not enough to pass muster before it. In this respect John and Jesus have their place in a broader context of Jewish renewal movements including, each in their own way, the Qumran Community, the Pharisees, and the prophetic or messianic figures mentioned by Josephus” (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 52).

[43] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 66.

[44] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 67. In Jews and Christians Charlesworth writes, “The historical Jesus should be seen as a devout Palestinian Jew who was influenced by the liturgy of the synagogue. He was one who prayed and was always God-oriented. He was especially influenced by some strains of Jewish apocalypticism; his basic message was shaped by the conviction that God would act very soon on behalf of faithful Jews” (Charlesworth, Jews and Christians 46).

[45] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 66-67.

[46] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 70.

[47] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 70.

[48] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 71. Similarly, in Jesus within Judaism Charlesworth writes, “For four decades—from 30 to 70—the Palestinian Jesus movement was a Jewish group that used Jewish traditions to articulate allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew from Galilee” (Charlesworth, James H. Jesus within Judaism; New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries [New York : Doubleday] 1988).

[49] In Jesus’ Jewishness Charlesworth writes that “it is clear that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, probably because he seemed to them a political insurrectionist.” Later he cites with approval F.F. Bruce’s comment that Jesus was “far from an inoffensive person” (Charlesworth, James H. Jesus’ Jewishness [New York : Crossroad Herder, 1996] 189, 195). In Jesus within Judaism Charlesworth writes that Jesus’ “life and teachings were often in sharp contrast to the religious life of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes” and “E.P. Sanders, in his important Jesus and Judaism, underestimates the sheer magnitude of the social crises cause by Jesus’ rejection of the Jewish, especially Essene, rules of purification” (Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism 73) and finally, that “…the opposition to the Jerusalem Temple cult is so dynamically embedded in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan literature, as well as in other early Jewish literature, that is was on one of the forces that shaped the Jewish groups that produced the documents” (Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism 192).

[50] Γενεα πορνηρα. Matthew adds μοιχαλις, “adulterous.”

[51] Also in Q, when Jesus sends his disciples out into the villages he warns them, “Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves…” (Lk 10:3// Mt 10:16). In what could be seen as a Matthean addition to this Q passage, Jesus warns, “when they persecute you in one town, flee to the next” (Mt 10:23). It is hard to imagine that he had only religious leaders in mind, though he may have seen religious leaders as instigators of broader persecution. In yet another Q passage, Jesus is probably not just thinking of religious leaders when he condemns sinners in general saying, “I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers” (Lk 6:27-28//Mt. 7:23-24).

[52] Ος γαρ εαν επαισχθνθη...

[53] Εν τη γενεα ταυτη τη μοιχαλιδι και αμαρτωλω. Parallels in Matthew and Luke leave out the adulterous part (Mk 8:38//Mt 16:26//Lk 9:26).

[54] Ο γενεα απιστος.

[55] Οι δε υιοι της βασιλειας εκβληθησονται εις το σκοτος το εξωτερον εκει εσται ο κλαυθμος και ο βρυγμος των οδοντων.

[56] Haacker, Klaus. “What Must I Do To Inherit Eternal Life” in Charlesworth, Jesus Research 148-149.

[57] Πας ο φαυλα πρασσων μισει το φος.

[58] The tension between Jesus and “The Jews” is especially clear in John 8:12-58 though it is not entirely clear who “the Jews” include. The passage begins with Jesus addressing “the people” in general (Jn 8:12) but it is the Pharisees who challenge him (Jn 8:13) and to whom Jesus initially responds. Later in the chapter Jesus addresses “the Jews who had believed him” but it is precisely these Jews—who apparently included more than just religious leaders since it doesn’t appear that many of the leaders followed Jesus—whom Jesus challenges saying “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples” (Jn 8:31). These “Jews who believed him” answer claiming to be Abraham’s descendants (Jn 8:33), a point Jesus concedes (Jn 8:37). Jesus then accuses them of being ready to kill him, following the example of their father (Jn 8:38). At first they claim Abraham, and then God as their father (Jn 8:39, 41). Jesus responds saying “you belong to your father the devil” who “was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44). Earlier they had implied that Jesus was illegitimate (Jn 8:41) and now they accuse him of being demon possessed (Jn 8:48, 52). This passage is often viewed as being particularly anti-Semitic even though 1) as demonstrated later in this paper, it is no more “anti-Semitic” than what we find in other Jewish writings, 2) an argument could be made that the passage should be considered generally authentic on the basis of the criteria of embarrassment since it is unlikely that later Christians would have fabricated stories about Jesus being illegitimate or demon possessed and 3) Ronald Diprose cites 1 Jon 3:10 to point out that in Johannine theology “all of humanity, not just the Jewish people, are divided into tekna theou (‘children of God’) and tekna tou diabolou (‘children of the devil’)…Thus it is faulty exegesis to take Jesus’ phrase ‘you belong to your father, the devil,’ in isolation an read anti-Judaic attitudes into it while failing to consider parallel expressions used elsewhere in John’s writings” (Ronald Diprose. Israel and the Church. [Rome, Italy : Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2004] 35).

[59] Και ουδεις εξ υμων ποιει τον νομον.

[60] Charlesworth, however, once argued that “In that community the Jews who ‘believed in Jesus’ were being expelled from the synagogues in which they desired to worship and celebrate the high Jewish holidays” and that “It seems, therefore that the hostile portrayal of the Jews in John was occasioned by a harsh social situation: Jews leveling invectives at other Jews. John emerges out of a historical situation marred not by non-Jews verses Jews, but by some Jews fighting with other Jews” (Charlesworth, Jews and Christians 50).

[61] D. Moody Smith points out that the writer of John “obviously knows that Jesus is a Jew and yet “in John the Jews stand over against Jesus and his disciples.” Smith argues that “From John 9:22 one may infer that they are religious leaders exercising authority in the synagogues to which at least some followers of Jesus belonged.” In John 12:42 they seem to be Pharisees. Smith concludes that ‘The Jews’ is, then, a term used of a group of Jewish leaders who exercise great authority among their compatriots and are especially hostile to Jesus and his disciples (80-82). Smith doesn’t mention that in John 6:22, 24, the crowd follows Jesus across the Sea of Galilee to Capernaum. This crowd—and it is unlikely that the crowd consisted only of religious leaders—begins to take an oppositional stance against Jesus, are called “the Jews” (Jn 6:41, 52). In other words, Smith’s qualification limiting “the Jews” just to religious leaders does not always seem to be supported by the text. For John “the Jews” stands for those Jews (not all Jews) who take an oppositional stance against Jesus, regardless of whether they are religious leaders (Smith, D. Moody. “Judaism and the Gospel of John” in Jews and Christians [New York : Crossroad, 1990], 80-82).

[62] See, for example, Robert Funk’s description of his methodology in Honest to Jesus (San Francisco : HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) 60-62.

[63] Leander Keck probably reflects the thinking of most critical scholars. He assumes that both Matthew and John have altered their traditions about Jesus in light of their own struggles with Judaism. For example, Keck writes, “Matthew’s readers confronted a Judaism that was closing its ranks, forcing Jewish Christians to choose between their Jewish heritage and Christian identity” (Keck, Leander. “Jesus and Judaism in the New Testament” in Earthling Christologies edited by Walter P. Weaver and James H. Charlesworth [Valley Forge, PA : Trinity Press International] 1995, 66). Even if Matthew and John had altered their sources in light of the tensions of their times, this cannot negate the fact that Mark, Matthew, John, Luke and Q all present us with a Jesus who—like prophets in the Old Testament—condemned the sinfulness of his generation.

[64] Allison, Dale C. Constructing Jesus; Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids : Baker, 2010) 14.

[65] Allison, Constructing 15. Similarly, in Jesus Research, Wolter’s writes: “I will restrict myself to the search for typical contexts in which Jesus appears. The reasons for this restriction are above all practical ones, for it is far easier to reach a consensus on the reconstruction of such typical contexts than on the reconstruction of individual situations.”[65]

[66] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 179.

[67] In fact, according to the Book of Acts the tension existed from the very beginning of the church. The writer of Acts asserts that on the first Pentecost after the resurrection, Peter preached to a crowd in Jerusalem saying, “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). The message attributed to Stephen is even more pointed, “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit. Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it” (Acts 7:51-53). Although the historical reliability of Acts has certainly been challenged, it still gives us the perspective of a Christian author living in the first century. From that author’s perspective Jewish leaders attempted, with threats, beating and imprisonment, to force Peter and John to stop preaching Jesus (Acts 4:1-21; 5:17-18, 27-41). When Herod executed James, the writer of Acts says “this pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:1-3). When Paul preached in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Thessalonica, Berea, and Jerusalem he was reportedly persecuted by Jewish crowds in each city (13:45, 50; 14:5, 19; 17:1-10, 13; 21:27-31). The first century writer of Acts apparently believed that there was some “discontinuity” between first century Jews and the Jesus movement.

[68] Κρειττονος διαθηκης.

[69] Της σκηνης της αληθινης.

[70] Της μειζονος και τελειοτερας σκηνης.

[71] If the writer of Hebrews had been anti-Semitic, it is also unlikely that he would have attributed Jewish writings in the Old Testament to the Holy Spirit or to God as he does, for example, in Hebrews 3:7, 8:8 and 10:15.

[72] According to Charlesworth, the Palestinian Jesus movement came to an end in AD 70 (Charlesworth, James. Jews and Christians. [New York : Crossroad, 1990] 38). It would be possible, therefore, to ascribe the thinking in Hebrews to the post-70 church rather than to the earliest Jesus movement. Yet, some, e.g. F.F. Bruce, have argued that Hebrews was written before AD 70. Bruce argues that the most natural way of understanding Hebrews 10:2 is that the sacrifices were still being offered when Hebrews was written (Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1990] 236. But even if Hebrews was written post-AD 70, the same kind of thinking about New Covenant vs. Old Covenant can be traced back to Pre-70 AD as is seen in Paul’s writings discussed next.

[73] According to Acts 22:5 Paul carried out this persecution under the authority of “the high priest and the whole council of elders.” After his conversion, Paul’s “discontinuity” with Judaism was so strong that when the “circumcision group” (Gal 2:12) tried to tell his new converts that they must keep Jewish law in order to complete their conversion or to be fully saved, Paul cursed them saying (twice), let them “be eternally condemned” (Gal 1:8, 9).

[74] Some have argued that this passage was not original to First Thessalonians but must be a later redaction. There is no textual support for this theory.

[75] We find the same kind of rhetoric attributed to Peter and Stephen. According to Acts, Peter stands up before a Jewish crowd, probably not long after the first Pentecost after the resurrection and proclaims, “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One…You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead” (Acts 3:13-15). Similarly Steven is reported to have preached, “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him” (Acts 7:51-52). I fail to understand why these speeches should be attributed to anti-Semitism. First, in both cases the preachers are undoubtedly Jews! This is not a case of Gentile hatred of Jews but of Jewish self-critique. Second, the harshness of the rhetoric is really no different than the Jewish self-critique we see in the prophets, Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

[76] The Gospel of Matthew often receives the most severe criticism in this regard and yet Matthew is the most Jewish of the canonical Gospels. As Keck points out, “…Matthew emphasizes more than any other New Testament book that Jesus fulfills Scripture and Israel’s hope.” “Seven times Matthew actually points out that what we have just read happened as the fulfillment of Scripture….” Matthew “also shows that Jesus is like Moses, first as a baby who was nearly killed by a king (2:13-18) and then by bringing God’s law on a mountain (chaps. 5-7). Moreover, Matthew’ Jesus explicitly limits the mission of the disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and tells them to avoid the gentiles…” (Keck, Leander, “Jesus and Judaism in the New Testament” in Earthling Christologies 63).

[77] Paul boast that he is an offspring of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee and a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” and a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22: 3-5; Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5).[77] He calls his fellow Jews, “Kinsmen according to the flesh” to whom belong “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom 9:3-4).

[78] Contrary to some modern theologians, Paul says that God has not ultimately rejected his people, the Jews (Rom 11:1-2) and that one day “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). In fact, Paul insists that Gentile salvation comes only through being “grafted in” to a Jewish “olive tree” (Rom 11:13-24). This is essentially what the Gospel of John records Jesus as teaching (“salvation is from the Jews”) which might seem strange coming from what many scholars consider to be such a blatantly anti-Semitic Gospel (Jn 4:22).

[79] It is important to bear in mind that the supposed “anti-Semitic” criticism found in the New Testament is not an expression of Gentile criticism against Jews, but of Jewish self-criticism!

[80] Other examples from Isaiah include, “Jerusalem staggers, Judah is falling; their words and deeds are against the LORD, defying his glorious presence. The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves” (Isa 3:8-9). “Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine (Isa 5:11). “Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixed drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent” (Isa 5:22). “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issues oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless” (Isa 10:1-2). “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men (Isa 29:13). “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt. Your lips have spoken lies, and your tongue mutters wicked things. No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil” (Isa 59:2-4).

[81] Other examples from Jeremiah include, “On your clothes men find the lifeblood of the innocent poor” (Jer 2:34). “…You have defiled the land with your prostitution and wickedness” (Jer 3:2). “During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, ‘Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there (Jer 3:6). “…Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery” (Jer 3:8). “Oh Jerusalem, wash the evil from your heart and be saved. How long will you harbor wicked thoughts?” (Jer 4:14). “My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good” (Jer 4:22). “Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares. If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city” (Jer 5:1). “But they did not listen or pay attention; instead they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts” (Jer 7:24). Then the LORD said to me, ‘Do not pray for the well-being of this people. Although they fast, I will not listen to their cry; though they offer burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them Instead, I will destroy them with the sword, famine and plague” (Jer 14:11-12). “And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evil doers, so that no one turns from this wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah” (Jer 23:14). “Have you forgotten the wickedness committed by your fathers and by the kings and queens of Judah and the wickedness committed by you and your wives in the land of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem? To this day they have not humbled themselves or shown reverence, nor have they followed my law…” (Jer 44:9-10).

[82] Other examples from Hosea include, “…the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the Lord” (Hos 1:2; cf 2:1-23). “The more the priests increased, the more they sinned against me; they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful. They feed on the sins of my people and relish their wickedness. And it will be: Like people, like priests. I will punish both of them for their ways…(Hos 4:7-9). “Their deeds do not permit them to return to their God. A spirit of prostitution is in their heart; they do not acknowledge the LORD. Israel’s arrogance testifies against them; the Israelites, even Ephraim, stumble in their sin; Judah also stumbles with them” (Hos 5:4-5). “I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel. There Ephraim is given to prostitution and Israel is defiled” (Hos 6:10). “…this sins of Ephraim are exposed and the crimes of Samaria revealed. They practice deceit, thieves break into hours, bandits rob in the streets; but they do not realize that t I remember all their evil deeds. Their sins engulf them; they are always before me. They delight the king with their wickedness, the princes with their lies. They are all adulterers, burning like an oven…” (Hos 7:1-4). “Israel’s arrogance testifies against him, but despite all this he does not return to the LORD his God or search for him (Hos 7:10). “Woe to them because they have strayed from me! Destruction to them because they have rebelled against me!” (Hos 7:13). “Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit. And Judah is unruly against God, even against the faithful Holy One” (Hos 11:12).

[83] For example, the book of Ezekiel says, “He said, ‘Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn…they are a rebellious house…” (Ezek 2:3-5). Against Jerusalem Ezekiel writes, “Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the nations and countries around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees” (Ezek 5:6). “This is what the sovereign LORD says: Strike your hands together and stamp your feet and cry out ‘Alas!’ because of all the wicked and detestable practices of the house of Israel, for they will fall by the sword, famine and plague” (Ezek 6:11). Also against Jerusalem, “In you are slanderous men bent on shedding blood; in you are those who eat at the mountain shrines and commit lewd acts. In you are those who dishonor their father’ bed; in you are those who violate women during their period, when they are ceremonially unclean. In you one man commits a detestable offense with his neighbor’s wife, another shamefully defiles his daughter-in-aw, and other violates his sister, his own father’s daughter. In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. Any you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD” (Ezek 22:9-12). The book of Joel says, “Wake up you drunkards, and weep! Wail, all you drinker of wine; wail because of the new wine, for it has been snatched from your lips” (Joel 1:5). Joel goes on to call the people to repentance, “Even now, declares the LORD, return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning” (Joel 2:12). Amos writes that Judah has “rejected the law of the LORD, and have not kept his statues,” having been led astray by their lies (Am 2:4-5).[83] Micah pronounces woe on those who oppress others and “devise wickedness and work evil on their beds” (Micah 2:1-2).[83] Habakkuk complains, “How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevail. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice if perverted” (Hab 1:2-4). Zephaniah condemns Jerusalem saying, “Woe to the city of oppressors, rebellious and defiled!” (Zeph 3:1).[83] Zechariah says, “Do not be like your forefathers, who whom the earlier prophets proclaimed: This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Turn from your evil ways and your evil practices.’ But they would not listen or pay attention to me, declares the LORD” (Zech 1:4). “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry” (Zech 7:11-12). Malachi continues the condemnation: “So I will come to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,’ says the LORD Almighty (Mal 3:5). “Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them” (Mal 3:6-7). “You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me” (Mal 3:9). These quotes are come nowhere near exhausting the pool of scathing self-denunciation by Jewish prophets on the Jewish leaders, priests and people found in the Tanakh—and in light of all these scathing Jewish self-denunciations, I must say that I find it a little surprising that charges of anti-Semitism against Jewish writers of the New Testament have received so much acceptance.

[84] 1QHab IX.

[85] 4QNah.

[86] IQS1.10.

[87] Charlesworth, Jesus Research 71.

[88] Other examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls include the following: “…Both those, followers of my testimony, have allowed themselves to be enticed by those spread[ing lies] [and they have discontinued] in the service of justice, even though you, God, commanded them to seek fortune far from their paths, [walking] on your holy path, on which the uncircumcised, the unclean, the vicious, do not travel. They have staggered off the path of your heart and in [boundless] misfortune they languish. Belial is the counselor of their heart, and following the schemes of iniquity they wallow in guilt” (1QH XIV 19-22). “These are the arrogant men who are in Jerusalem. They are the ones who: Have rejected the law of God and mocked the word of the Holy One of Israel. For this the wrath of God has been kindled against his people and he has stretched out his hand against them and wounded them” (4Q162 Frag.1 col. II. Isaiah). “Its interpretation: he has punished them with hunger and with nakedness so they will be shame and disgrace in the eyes of the nations on whom they relied” (4Q166 col II, Hosea). “Its interpretation are the wick[ed people of Judah] the house of Peleg, which consorted with Manasseh” (4Q169 Frags. 3-3 col. IV, Nahum). “Is interpretation concerns the last priests of Jerusalem, who will accumulate riches and loot from plundering the peoples. However, in the last days their riches and their loot will fall into the hands of the army of the Kittim” (1QpHab IX). “Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor [for of them is] the inheritance of the whole wor[ld. They will inherit the high mountain of Israel [and] delight [in his] holy [mou]ntain, but those who are [cursed by him will be cut off. These are the ruthless ones of the co[venant, the wicke]d men of Israel who will be cut off and exterminated forever” (4Q171 III. Psalms). “”And they will not know and will not understand that I am annoyed with them for their transgressions [for they will des]ert [me] and do what is evil in my eyes and what I do not want them to choose: domineering for money, for advantage [and for wickedness,] one stealing what belongs to his neighbour and one persecuting his neighbour; they will defile my temple[they will loath my Sabbaths and] my festivals and with the sons of [foreigners] they will debase their offspring; the priests will rape…” (4QPseudo-Moses Apocalypse Frag. 2 col.I). (DSS quotations are from Martinez, Florentino Garcia. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. [Leiden : Brill] 1994.

[89] 1 Macc. 1:43; 9:23-25; 9:58; 69; 10:61; 11:21; 14:14.

[90] Bar 4:6-7, 12-13.

[91] Fourth Ezra 1:4-7.

[92] Jub 1:7

[93] Jub 1:9-12. The writer of Jubilees also prophecies a coming “evil generation” in which the people will do “great evil,” “forsaking the covenant,” and committing “polluted and abominable deeds,” having “forgotten the commandments and covenant…” (Jub 23:14-19).

[94] 1 Enoch 10:4.

[95] 1 Enoch 21:1-4; 54:1-6; 67:13; 90:24-26; 91:9-10; 103:5-8.

[96] 1 Enoch 38:1-3.

[97] Charlesworth does an excellent job documenting, from sources contemporaneous with Jesus, that it was a caricature of the truth to imagine that all Jews of Jesus day were like the self-righteous Pharisee in the Luke’s story of the Pharisee and the sinner (Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 47-51). This is certainly true, but even today a preacher may preach against what he perceives to be self-righteousness among some in his audience, knowing full well that many in the audience are not self-righteous at all. Similarly, Jesus’ condemnation of self-righteous religious leaders should not be dismissed as creations of the late first century church simply because there were many Jews (like Zachariah, Simeon, Elizabeth, Anna, John, Nicodemus, Joseph of Aramathia, Mary and Martha, Lazarus, or the “teacher of the law” described in Mark 12.28-34) who loved God earnestly and not hypocritically.

[98] 1 Enoch 94:6-8, 96:5-8; 96:4-8; 97:7-8; 98:9-16; 99:1-2, 11-15; 100:7-9. Even Josephus could be critical of his own Jewish countrymen at times, for example when he writes how under Felix, “the affairs of the Jews…grew worse and worse continually; for the country was filled with robbers and imposters, who deluded the multitude.” (Josephus. Antiquities. 20.8.5).

[99] Whatever that might mean, now that we are accustomed to thinking in terms of Judaisms rather than one “orthodox, monolithic” religion “cut off from other cultures” (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 58, 59).

[100] If by this the authors mean that some of what the New Testament authors chose to include in their writings, and the way they chose to say it, was influenced by conflicts between church and synagogue, I would not quibble. But if they mean that N.T. writers fabricated events and sayings as an expression of their hatred of Jews, or if they mean that the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewishness of the earliest followers of Jesus was such that there really was not much distinction between Jews and the earliest Jesus movement, then I must disagree.

[101] The fact is that the Jewish self-critique in the New Testament almost seems a bit mild when compared with some other Jewish writings. For example, nowhere in the New Testament would is there a plea that God not be merciful to those doomed to everlasting fire, nor pardon them even when they do penance, as there is in the Rule of the Community (1QS II 8).

[102] “Jaroslav Pelikan observes that, ‘Virtually every major Christian writer of the first five centuries either composed a treatise in opposition to Judaism or make this issue a dominant theme in a treatise devoted to some other subject” (Pelikan, as quoted in Diprose, Ronald E. Israel and the Church. [Rome, Italy : Instituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano] 178).

[103] Charlesworth, for example, says that Anti-Semitism has “distorted the re-creations of first century phenomena and especially the presentation of the historical Jesus” (Charlesworth, Jesus Research 56). My concern is that we may be overreacting and committing the opposite error, i.e. that in our oversensitivity to the shameful history of Anti-Semitism we may be distorting presentations of the historical Jesus in the opposite direction. Schroter, for example, notes that “the current sensitivity to the Jewish roots of Christianity, much greater than in earlier stages of Jesus Research, is due not least to the theological reflection that occurred in the wake of the Shoa” (Schroter, Jens. “Jesus of Galilee” in Charlesworth, Jesus Research 27).

[104] I should probably interject somewhere in here—lest anyone think that I am operating under some hidden anti-Semitic agenda—that anyone who knows me knows of my strong uncompromising and outspoken support for the Jewish people in general and the state of Israel in particular. I would also add that absolutely nothing that Jewish leaders or Jewish people did to Jesus, Paul or early Christians justifies the shameful way in which Christians have treated Jews down through the centuries. In persecuting Jews, Christians denied the very teachings of Jesus and Paul they professed to follow.

[105] And, assuming that Acts is reliable, the same would be true for Peter and Stephen.

[106] Of course another part of this solution lies in taking Jesus seriously when he commanded that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves (Mk 12:31; Mt 19:19; 22:39; Lk 10:27).

[107] As demonstrated by Paul’s quotations from Ps 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccl 7:20; Ps 5:9; Ps 140:3; Ps 10:7; Isa 59:7-8; and Ps 36:1 in Romans 3:10-18.

[108] Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism 43.

[109] Admittedly, it is difficult or impossible to determine the actual relative degree of emphasis the historical Jesus placed on judgment vs. good news. How would we do that? Count the number of verses or pericopes (or pericopae)

in Jesus’ sayings on judgment as opposed to the number of sayings or pericopae in his preaching of the good news? Even then, the best we could hope for is to determine the relative degree of emphasis each Gospel writer placed on the topic. Granted, there may be more verses in the Gospels on love, compassion and good news than on judgment, but on the other hand in both Matthew and Mark the very first words Jesus is recorded as preaching as part of his ministry includes a call to “repent” (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:14). The fact is that in all four gospels Jesus preaches a strong and powerful message judgment and a call to repentance as part of good news. In modern preaching, the judgment part often seems to be omitted entirely.

[110] Leon Morris writes, “The wrath of God is not a popular subject today but it looms large in biblical teaching (Moris, Leon. Expositors Bible Commentary. [Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1981] 145). Similarly Simon Kistemaker writes, “Preaching sermons on hellfire appears to be something that happened in the past but not today. This type of preaching is considered an oddity of the eighteenth century; it should not be heard from a twentieth-century pulpit. True. Sermons ought to proclaim the gospel of salvation, the call to repentance, the assurance of pardon, and the message of reconciliation between God and man. Proportionally, Scripture says little about God’s burning wrath that consumes his enemies. If Scripture sets the example, we should follow its practice. Nevertheless, no preacher may fail to warn the people of the dire consequences of turning away from the living God. The recurring theme of the Epistle of Hebrews is one of warning God’s people” (Kistemaker, Simon J. Thessalonians, the Pastorals and Hebrews. New Testament Commentary. [Grand Rapids : Baker, 2007] 296-297.

[111] Charlesworth, James H. Jesus’ Jewishness (New York : Crossroad Herder, 1996).

[112] Charlesworth, James H. ed. Jews and Christians (New York : Crossroad, 1990).

Jesus the teacher

2011-10-12T16:48:00.000-07:00

I gave the following devotion at the faculty meeting today:

In a passage you all probably know by heart and on which you have heard hundreds of sermons, Jesus said:

Go therefore and make disciple of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Mathew 28:18-20).

When I think of Jesus, I think of the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, of the Messiah, Savior, Son of God, prophet, miracle worker—and somewhere down the line, teacher. Of course we all know of Jesus as a teacher, but I don’t think I ever paid much attention to the emphasis the New Testament places on teaching until I read Jesus Remembered by James Dunn (176-177).

I decided look into this emphasis a little further and found that Jesus was called “Teacher” over 30 times, in all four Gospels. In fact, he even called himself “teacher.”

Jesus taught large crowds, small groups, individuals—including women—Pharisees and teachers of the law, both those who were sympathetic as well as opponents and enemies.

Jesus is recorded as teaching in towns and villages, throughout Galilee, throughout Judea, beyond the Jordan, in homes, in the streets, on a mountain, in the countryside, beside the sea, in a boat, in the synagogues, and in the Temple.

In fact it recently occurred to me how much Jesus was modeling his own Great commission: As he was going he was making disciples through his teaching.

Similarly Paul was making disciples as he taught from house to house, in churches, in synagogues, in the public square, in a rented facility, in the Temple and even from prison.

So what does this have to do with us? I mean, just because Jesus and Paul were teachers doesn’t necessarily make college teaching a Christian vocation. After all, we are probably pretty safe in concluding that neither Jesus nor Paul were teaching about things like mitochondria, music theory, atrial fibrillation, macroeconomics, or bipolar disorder.

What they were doing through their teaching, however, was making disciples.

My perception is that there are a lot of Christian Colleges which teach students to be good biologists and psychologists and teachers and business people—and oh, by the way, the faculty professes to be Christians.

And then there are Christian colleges in which dedicated Christian professors seek to make disciples—intentionally teaching their students through their words and life—to love and obey Jesus and to be better ambassadors for Christ through whatever subject they are teaching.

There is currently a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (http://goo.gl/FS0Mc), Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church vs. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which the Justices have been analyzing the legal definition of a minister. I suspect that the outcome could have far-ranging implications for colleges like Crown.

From what I’ve read, the Justices seem to be assuming that in Christian schools and colleges, there is a wide divide between theology and ministry classes on the one hand, and courses like business, psychology, and science, on the other. Some of the Justices seem to have difficulty understanding why doctrinal statements and behavior codes should apply to teachers in so-called secular disciplines.

They don’t seem to understand that in colleges like Crown, there are no purely “secular” disciplines—our Christian faith is integrated into our coursework—and that while our professors are not all ordained, we are all ministers or servants of Jesus Christ who are seeking to make disciples.

Some of the Justices don’t seem to understand (or care) that while we strive toward academic excellence, our primary goal is to produce students who will love and serve Jesus through whatever career path they choose.

One of the things I appreciate most about Crown, and about you, is that my perception is that most of you—I trust all of you—are not just here to teach classes, but are here as ministers of Jesus Christ striving to make disciples who will love and serve Him.

My exhortation would be to continue to strive toward academic excellence, but that we always do so in the context of making disciples who will love and serve Jesus through whatever vocation they choose.

Homosexuality and Hermeneutics

2011-09-28T16:56:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine recently sent me an e-mail telling me about a new argument for homosexuality. It argues that the “Spirit affects and effects the interpretation of Scripture by working in communities of readers” (Rogers ed.), therefore,

“Just as experience in the Spirit in Acts convinced someone like Peter to argue for Gentile inclusion without circumcision, so recognition of the Sprit’s work in the lives of homosexual Christians might lead the church to re-consider the moral status of homosexuality.”

Here is an edited version of my response:

First, this view seems to downplay the importance of the Jesus' apostles. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). This new view seems to hold that our imagined revelations are on the same level as those of the apostles and prophets (we are NOT Jesus' apostles)! It seems to me that this is a view more closely aligned with early Gnostic heretics than Christianity. Early Gnostic heretics also downplayed the role of the apostles and tried to deceive others with their imagined revelations.

By contrast, I think it was Ignatius (AD 110) who told his readers NOT to lift him up on the same level of the apostles! He told his readers that he is just a servant, not an apostle! I sense the same attitude in other early church leaders like Clement of Rome and Polycarp as well.

Second, it seems very "convenient" to me that after 2,000 years of understanding that homosexual behavior was condemned by God, we suddenly imagine that the Spirit is teaching something brand new, just (conveniently) at a time when it is not popular or politically correct to stand against homosexual behavior!

I am amazed by the ingeniousness of some "Christians" in their efforts to make something acceptable that God calls an abomination! For 2000 years the church (and before them the Jews) believed homosexual behavior was a very, very serious sin--but all of a sudden, just when that view is unpopular, we imagine that the Spirit is teaching us something different! God help us!

Third, this method of interpreting Scripture is so fluid that there is no fixed meaning. What Scripture might mean today may have no relation to what it might mean next year.

"This approach to the Spirit and interpretation of God’s Word makes everything fluid with no static interpretation whatsoever.” I would go even further and argue that if this new approach is valid, we might just as well rip up our Bible and throw it in the trash--it is useless. We should all just sit around and see what God is whispering in our ear today--which, coincidentally is probably going to be similar to whatever we happen to want.

Democrats will undoubtedly "hear" God telling them to support the Democrat candidate for President. Republicans will undoubtedly "hear" God telling them to support the Republican candidate. And of course, there will be enough Christians supporting either of these options that we can call it a "community of readers" and argue that God is now speaking through the "true" church (which right-wing congregations will imagine to be their churches, and left-wing congregations will imagine to be their churches).

There is also a growing number of "Christians" who are arguing against hell. Perhaps God is telling us something different now and that there really is no hell after all. In fact, maybe God is now telling us that ALL people will be saved and that evangelism isn't really necessary. The point is that there is absolutely no end to what we can imagine God telling us once we start down this path.

Third, if this new view is correct, perhaps I need to be open to Joseph Smith's revelations as well--and maybe even those of Muhammad!

Fourth, Acts 15 is just a summary of a much longer debate (see Acts 15:7 which refers to "after much discussion"). I think we should be a little careful about drawing wide-ranging conclusions about new hermeneutical methods based on the summary in Acts 15 (we don't usually draw wide ranging conclusions about finding the will of God by casting lots in Acts 1:26). For example, I would argue that the decision of the Jerusalem Council was not JUST because

1) the apostles were seeing signs of the Spirit in believing Gentiles (though that was certainly one of the factors).

But the acceptance of Gentiles was undoubtedly due to a number of other factors as well, including,

2) the fact that the salvation of the Gentiles was mentioned even in the Old Testament (see James' testimony in Acts 15:13-18)

3) the vision Peter received about the unclean/clean animals and the accompanying direct command of God to go to Gentiles (Acts 10-11; see Peter's testimony in Acts 15:7)

4) The fact that Jesus' himself had declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19) and later commanded his followers to go into all the world to make disciples (Mt 28:18-20)

This new hermeneutic seems to hold that the acceptance of Gentiles in Acts 15 was based solely on the fact that some Jewish Christians had witnessed some Gentiles speaking in tongues. Supposedly, the apostles, therefore, concluded—based on this one fact alone—that God was doing something different. But that is NOT what the text says. The decision was based on based on a number of factors--including Scripture and the teaching of Jesus!

Fifth, as argued above, the Acts 15 decision was perfectly in line with Old Testament revelation about the salvation of the Gentiles. It was completely compatible with Jesus' command to preach the Gospel to Gentiles, and with the command Peter received to go to Gentiles and with the command Paul received to go to Gentiles. On the other hand the new hermeneutical principle we are supposed to derive from Acts 15 is that a behavior that God says is so abominable that he "vomited out" nations for it (Lev 18:22-28; 20:13, 22-26)--the condemnation of which is repeated in the NT--is suddenly imagined to be perfectly acceptable to God now! God help us!

If this new hermeneutical principle is true, then there is absolutely no behavior that could not be explained away by some ingenious "Christian" as now being acceptable to God! Homosexual behavior is condemned in the strongest possible terms in the Old Testament, and that condemnation is repeated in the NT. If that behavior can be explained away as now being acceptable to God--then so could theft, murder, rape, adultery, or absolutely anything else. There is nothing so abominable but that some ingenious group could not find "reasons" for imagining that God was telling them something new.

For example, think of the mainline German churches under Hitler. If this new method of hermeneutics was popular back then, I have no doubt whatsoever that some in the mainline churches would have used it to argue that God was leading them to support Hitler. In fact, some may even have gone as far as to argue that God was telling them to support Hitler's "final solution"--regardless of God's previous command against murder. After all, it wasn't just a handful of "Christians" who supported Hitler but a significant percentage--they could argue that God was speaking through the new consensus of the community!

I'm not denying that the Holy Spirit can and does speak today--but once our "private" revelations are cut off from the written Word of God--or flatly contradict the Word of God--Christianity--as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone--ceases to exist.

Worldviews

2011-08-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

I presented the following paper to the faculty of Crown College on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (The paper is just a broad overview. The endnotes contain more depth).

A Brief Survey of Worldviews
Dennis Ingolfsland
August, 2011

This paper will present a summary and critique of what I think is one of the best popular level introductions to worldviews in print.[1] For those who have read the book, this presentation will provide a review of the most current edition. For those who have never read the book, I hope this will encourage you to read it.

James Sire originally wrote The Universe Next Door in 1976. It is now on its fourth edition and has been translated into more than a dozen languages. I’m quite sure Dr. Sire would not remember me but I had the unique experience of being kicked out of a restaurant with him.

It happened during an annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society which I was attending as a member of the Bible department of Bryan College. My colleagues and I invited Dr. Sire to join us for a late night discussion at a local Waffle House. Not many people were there at that time of the evening and our discussions just went on and on. We were quite surprised and embarrassed when the manager came over and asked us to leave. We had become so engrossed in our conversation that we were completely oblivious to the fact that the place had become packed and there was a waiting line for the tables! Worldviews is a fascinating topic! [2]

In The Universe Next Door, Sire defines a worldview[3]^,[4] as:

…a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart,[5] that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being (Sire, Universe 17).[6]^,[7]

Sire lists seven basic questions to determine someone’s worldview[8]^,[9] First, “What is prime reality—the really real?”[10] Second, “What is the nature of external reality?” Third, “What is a human being?” Fourth, “What happens to a person at death?” Fifth, “Why is it possible to know anything at all?” Sixth, “How do we know what is right and wrong?” Seventh, “What is the meaning of human history?” (Sire, Universe 20).

Sire discusses Christian Theism first,[11]^,[12] but since Dr. Hustad covered theology in his presentation, I will jump directly to Sire’s second worldview: Deism.

Deism

Deists were generally less unified on some of the major issues than theists. For example some but not all denied divine revelation. Some but not all were hostile to Christianity. Some believed in a personal god and immortality of the soul. Others denied both.

So how did deists answer Sire’s seven basic questions? The prime reality is a transcendent God who created the universe as a “uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system” and then left it to function on its own. This god is not fully personal and is not sovereign over human events. Miracles are not possible in this worldview (Sire, Universe 49). In this system, people are just part of the clockwork. How is knowledge possible? Since deists denied the Fall of man they considered the universe to be in a normal, unfallen state. That being the case, the universe can be known simply by studying it.[13] The next question is how can people know right from wrong? Since there is no Fall and the universe is normal, “Whatever is, is right.” If this is true, however, good becomes indistinguishable from evil (Sire, Universe 53). Some deists believed “that Jesus’ ethical teachings were really natural law expressed in words” but from a deist perspective, this would appear to be inconsistent since Jesus often taught contrary to what “is.”

Although Deism didn’t last long it was necessary to include it, because it was an intermediate step between theism and naturalism.

Naturalism[14]

In deism, God loses some of his power and personality; “In naturalism God ceases to exist.”[15] Naturalism’s response to Sire’s first question would be that the prime reality is matter. In the words of Carl Sagan “the universe is all there is, was or ever will be” (Sire, Universe 61).[16]

Naturalism answers the second question regarding the nature of external reality by saying that “The cosmos exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system” (Sire, Universe 62). In other words, there is no outside intervention either by God who doesn’t exist or by human beings who are part of the system.

Naturalists’ answer to the third question is that “Human beings are complex ‘machines’; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties…” (Sire, Universe 64). In answer to the fourth question, naturalists assert that people are composed solely of matter so when that mater “is disorganized at death, the person disappears” (Sire, Universe 67).

How do we know right from wrong? Sire argued that while many early naturalists continued to hold to ethical values, they had no basis for doing so since in naturalism, ethics can be no more than a human construct. Finally, history is only what we make of it and has only the meaning people give to it.

Unlike deism, naturalism is alive and well and continues to dominate academia. Even some naturalists, however, soon began detecting problems with their worldview. Chief among these problems was a question of epistemology. If the human brain is nothing more than an evolved electro-chemical thinking machine, how can anyone trust their own ability to know anything for certain?[17] This skepticism led to Nihilism.

Nihilism

Nihilism denies the possibility of knowledge and meaning. So, Sire asks, how did some people go from naturalism’s remarkably optimistic outlook in the “assured results of science,” to the despair of nihilism?

First, if matter is all that exists and the universe “operates with a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system,” the logical conclusion is that man is nothing more than a highly complex machine that is just part of the system.

Second, if people are just the result of impersonal forces, they have no way of knowing whether what they think they know is truth or merely illusion. Naturalists, of course, use the scientific method to determine truth but they cannot escape the fact that ultimately it is the brain that constructs the method and interprets the results. Even Darwin once wondered whether the convictions of a mind developed from lower animals could be trusted. He asked, “Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Sire, Universe 98).

Third, although many naturalists are moral people, naturalism cannot provide a basis for morality. “Summing up the position reached by Nietzsche and Max Weber, Allan Bloom remarks, ‘Reason cannot establish values, and its belief that it can is the stupidest and most pernicious illusion” (Sire, Universe 102). Cultural anthropologists may argue that values are relative to one’s culture but that is just another way of saying “is” equals “ought.” What about those who rebel against their culture? Why is their “is” not considered “ought”? The only way true ethical values are possible is if we have a frame of reference outside the box. This frame of reference is provided by theism but not by naturalism for which nothing exists outside the box.

If, therefore, we take seriously the non-existence of God and the closed nature of the universe, naturalism leads logically to nihilism. Socrates is reported to have said that the unexamined life is not worth living but for nihilists it is the examined life that is not worth living because it is a life of despair.[18] In fact, the nihilist worldview cannot be lived consistently. Every purposeful step nihilists take, every time they trust their own thinking, they are violating their own philosophy.

Not only that, but for those who think life is absolutely meaningless, absolutely nothing has meaning.[19] One could choose to commit suicide but that is no more or less appropriate or meaningful than watching a Disney movie. Since people cannot consistently live as nihilists, existentialist philosophers stepped in to provide a solution.

Existentialism

Existentialism’s major goal was to transcend nihilism. Existentialism comes in both atheist and religious forms. Neither form is a full-blow worldview; both are parasites on naturalism and theism respectively. “Atheistic existentialism affirms all propositions of naturalism except those relating to human nature and our relationship to the cosmos” (Sire, Universe 114).

On the question of prime reality, existentialists, like naturalists, believe the universe is composed solely of matter. Existentialists, however, argue that when conscious beings came into existence two kinds of entities were now in the universe: 1) The objective world of cause and effect, and 2) The subjective world “of mind, consciousness and freedom” (Sire, Universe 114-115). While naturalism emphasized the unity of these two, treating people as objects, existentialism emphasized the disunity and the idea that people can have value. In existentialism, “existence precedes essence.” Sire explains:

The objective world is the world of essences. Everything comes bearing its nature. Salt is salt; trees are trees; ants are ant. Only human beings are not human until they make themselves so. Each of us makes himself or herself human by what we do with our self-consciousness and our self-determinacy (Sire, Universe 116).

For example, John is a soldier who fears he is a coward. But he only becomes a coward if he acts like a coward. Like John, each person is free to create their own value. Our dreams and intentions, however, run up against an absurd universe that doesn’t care about our wishes. For example, gravity doesn’t care how badly you wish, or need to float down from a high building.

In opposition to “the absurdity of the objective world, the authentic person must revolt and create value” (Sire, Universe 118). For the existentialist, ethics is a matter of choosing. “Sartre writes “to choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil” (Sire, Universe 119). Sire asks, but what about the Unabomber, or the Oklahoma City bombing or 911? Sire points out that even Sartre, rather inconsistently, sided with various moral causes.

There is also a theistic version of existentialism, first developed by Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) in response to the dead orthodoxy of the Danish church. Several generations later, Karl Barth (1886-1968) responded to “a watered-down gospel of morality and good works” in his day by “refurbishing Christianity along existential lines” (Sire, Universe 127).[20]

Although theistic existentialism (neo-Orthodoxy) brought God back into the picture, it differed with traditional theism in at least two significant ways. First, theistic existentialists generally sided with the higher critics in denying the accuracy of the Bible. This could have resulted in the loss of faith. Instead it led to the conclusion that the Bible’s facts were not important—the important thing was the Bible’s timeless moral truths and positive examples. Meaning was important; facts were not. For example, the question of whether Jesus actually rose from the dead was not important. What was important was the meaning of that event, which was the reality of a transformed life.[21]

Theists point out that significant evidence has emerged since Barth’s time to support the reliability of the Bible, but existentialist theologians have generally ignored or marginalized this evidence. Theists also point out that in order for an event to have meaning, the event must have actually occurred! [22] How can something that never occurred—the resurrection, for example—be the symbol of hope, new life or anything else?[23]

Eastern Pantheistic Monism

Sire’s survey showed that reason led logically from naturalism to nihilism. To avoid this, we could abandon reason altogether. Existentialism followed this path in part. Maybe we should go all the way and look to the East for answers.

Pantheistic monism is “the notion that only one impersonal element constitutes reality” (Sire, Universe 144). In this worldview, Atman[24] is a person’s soul or essence. Brahman is the soul or essence of the entire cosmos.[25] In pantheistic monism, “Atman is Brahman.” In other words, every human soul “is the Soul of the cosmos” (Sire, Universe 144). Every person is God and nothing exists that is not God. In fact, anything that appears to exist that is not God is only an illusion or “maya.”

Although “Ultimate reality is beyond distinction,” reality exists as a hierarchy of appearances ranging from mineral, to vegetable, to animal to humanity. There is also a hierarchy of humanity since some people are closer to unity with the “One” than others. Becoming one with the “One” is not a matter of right doctrine but being on the right path, and there are many paths or orientations. For example, some paths may involve meditation, chanting a mantra, or constant repetition of prayers.[26]

In Eastern thought there is really no distinction between good and evil since “all actions are merely part of the whole world of illusion.”[27] “The concept of karma, however, is almost universal in Eastern thought,” but karma is not like sin. There is no personal God to sin against or from whom to seek forgiveness. “Karma is the notion that one’s present fate, one’s pleasure or pain, one’s being a king or a slave or a gnat, is the result of past action, especially in a former existence” (Sire, Universe 152-153).[28]

Although this may sound like a moral system, there are differences. If good works are done, they are not done to help others but to attain unity with the One. In fact, since the law of Karma requires that each soul suffer the consequences for past actions, relieving someone’s suffering does not ultimately help them.

On the question of death, Hindu monism is slightly different than Zen Buddhist monism. In Hinduism the Brahman (the One) emanates the cosmos like a light bulb emanates photons into the darkness. Personal existence ends at death.[29] Atman, or the soul survives, but Atman is impersonal.

In Zen Buddhist monism,[30] on the other hand, the “Void” is the ultimate reality. The Void is not “nothing”[31] or “something.” It isn’t a thing at all, even though it is the origin of everything.[32]

This difference over ultimate reality is important because it “leads to a different understanding of human beings” (Sire, Universe 159). In Hinduism “a soul (Atman)…has substantial (spiritual, not material) reality because it is an emanation of Brahman” (Sire, Universe 159). In Buddhism “there is no namable nature at the core of each person” (Sire, Universe 159).[33] So while Hindus strive toward their goal of godhood, or unity with the One, Zen Buddhists strive to reach a state of non-being.

So how can we as Westerners respond to all this? If we say this worldview is irrational, Easterners will reject rationality as a valid category. If we say Eastern monism eliminates morality, they will deny the “duality that is required for the distinction” between good and evil. If we point out that Easterners are often inconsistent when they deny morality but behave morally, they will reject the importance of consistency. Sire concludes, “No wonder Western missionaries have made little headway with committed Hindus and Buddhists” (Sire, Universe 160).

The New Age movement[34]

Eastern religion offered a way out for those in the West who were disillusioned by naturalism or nihilism. The problem is that Eastern thought is so radically different than the way Westerners perceive reality. The New Age Movement provided a slightly less radical option. The New Age movement is no longer the big news it was in the 80’s only because it has lost its novelty, not because it has gone away.[35]

In the New Age Movement the self is the prime reality, though New Agers often disagree on what the self actually is. For John Lilly, the self is “in control of all reality.” Lilly exclaims that “All and every thing that one can imagine exists” (Sire, Universe 180). Similarly, Shirley MacLaine[36] actually writes that she created her own reality including everything she “saw, heard, touched, smelled and tasted.” MacLaine asks, “Did that also mean I had created God and I had created life and death? “She concludes that for all practical purposes that was the case” (Sire, Universe 180-181).[37]

Many New Agers, however, have had to deal with the reality of bad drug trips involving visions of the demonic and hell. To avoid such terrifying experiences New Age leaders often urged that new believers consult a guide in their initial attempts to pursue cosmic consciousness. Sire points out the inconsistency here. If imagination or “seeing” is reality, then the “hell” and demons new agers experience in bad drug trips must also be reality.

So “What is the nature of external reality?” According to New Agers, the cosmos exists on at least two dimensions. First is the visible universe that we access via the five senses. Unlike Eastern monism, New Agers believe the visible universe actually exists and is not just illusion.

The Second dimension is “the invisible universe…accessible through altered states of consciousness” induced through a variety of methods like “drugs, meditation, trance, biofeedback, acupuncture, ritualized dance…” etc. (Sire, Universe 183-184). In this second dimension the laws of nature do not apply. “The…self can travel hundreds of miles…in the twinkling of an eye” and time can go backwards (Sire, Universe 185). This universe is also populated by special beings New Agers call “allies,’ ‘helpers,’ ‘guardians’ and ‘entities of the night” (Sire, Universe 188).

Sire argues that the New Age worldview is riddled with inconsistencies. In fact, almost all New Age ideas are often accepted by New Age proponents as equally valid even if they are contradictory. The New Age movement also ignores the problems posed by nihilism or Eastern monism. Finally, Sire comments that there can be no effective argument against those who think they are their own god and who create their own reality. Sire likens this to a psychotic state in which people completely withdraw from the world and live in their own universe.[38]

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is characterized by “incredulity toward metanarratives”[39] or worldviews: “With postmodernism no story can have any more credibility than any other” (Sire, Universe 214).[40] “The first question postmodernism addresses is not what is there or how we know what is there but how language functions to construct meaning.”[41] In postmodernism the emphasis has shifted from ontology (premodern), to epistemology[42] (modern), to constructing meaning (postmodern).[43]

This shift was first most evident in Nietzsche who took Descartes’ skepticism to the next level. Descartes concluded, “I think, therefore I am” but Nietzsche asked:

“What if it is the thinking that creates or causes the I rather than the I that creates or causes the thinking? What if the activity of thinking does not require an agent but produces only the illusion of an agent” (Sire, Universe 218-219)

If these and similar questions cannot be answered, “The truth about reality is,” therefore, “forever hidden from us. All we can do is tell stories” (Sire, Universe 219).

Even the stories we tell, however, are problematic because our stories can easily be misread and misinterpreted. “Texts and statements mean only what readers take them to mean” (Sire, Universe 223).[44] Not only that, but all narratives are power plays and metanarratives are oppressive.[45] “To reject oppression,” therefore, it is necessary “to reject all the stories society tells us” (Sire, Universe 224).

In postmodernism, “Ethics, like knowledge, is a linguistic construct.[46] Social good is determined by society, or more specifically, it is determined by what the power brokers of society decide to make it.

Sire makes several positive observations on postmodernism.[47] First, he argues that postmodernism’s critique of naturalism is often accurate in that “Too much confidence has been placed in human reason and the scientific method” (Sire, Universe 235).

Second, he agrees with the observation that language is often related to power. Sire says we should be more discerning of people’s motives—and even our own motives—for using language as we do. On the other hand, Sire cautions that if “all linguistic utterances are power plays,” then the postmodernist’s utterances can be dismissed as power plays as well (Sire, Universe 236).[48]

Third, Sire acknowledges that it is important to be aware of social context as we seek to understand the world, but he warns that “if we are only the product of the blind forces of nature and society, then so is our view that we are only the product of the blind forces of nature and society (Sire, Universe 236-237).

Sire then proceeds to more critical comments. First, he argues that the postmodern rejection of metanarratives is itself a metanarrative.[49] Second, if we can know nothing about reality, then we can know nothing about postmodernist truth claims either.[50] Third, if the postmodernist deconstructionist is right about our inability to know an author’s intent, then we can’t know the intent of postmodernist authors either.[51] Finally, Sire points out that postmodernism’s attack on human reason is based on human reason.[52] Although postmodernism is self-refuting on several levels it does tend to pull “the smiling mask of arrogance from the face of naturalism” (Sire, Universe 241).[53]^,[54]

Sire’s Conclusion: the Examined Life

In conclusion Sire poses the question of how to decide among the finite worldview options.[55]^,[56] He suggests four characteristics of an adequate worldview. First, although no worldview is completely free of inconsistency, there should be an inner coherence and consistency in the major elements. Second, an adequate worldview should be able to honestly account for all types of data, from personal experience to critical analysis, to scientific investigation, etc. “Third, an adequate worldview should explain what it claims to explain.”[57] Finally, a worldview “should be subjectively satisfactory” (Sire, Universe 247).[58] Sire argues that only theism can meet these criteria. He insists, however, that:

To be a Christian theist is not just to have an intellectual worldview; it is to be personally committed to the infinite-personal Lord of the universe. [59] And it leads to an examined life that is well worth living” (Sire, Universe 250).[60]

My concluding observations

First, I think Sire has done a commendable job helping us to think through worldviews from a logical perspective. Nothing in the following critique should be understood to negate the importance of Sire’s work. In fact, my main fear is that my brief summary has made the book’s argument appear much less sophisticated than it really is.

Second, I agree with Sire, and especially with Naugle, that one’s worldview is not just a matter of intellect, but is fundamentally a matter of the heart. That being the case I think the whole issue could be simplified. From a Christian worldview perspective—and Naugle persuasively demonstrated that even the way one looks at worldviews is affected by one’s own worldview—from a Christian perspective, worldviews can be broken down into just two categories: 1) A Christian worldview (in all of its variations) stemming from a heart that has been regenerated by the Spirit of God, a heart that loves God and desires to please him, and 2) All other worldviews which ultimately stem from an unregenerate heart that is in in rebellion against God. The fundamental orientation of the heart is the core issue in all worldviews (Naugle 267-274).[61]

Third, it is perhaps not at all surprising that someone like me would find nihilism, existentialism, Eastern monism, the New Age movement and postmodernism to be so absurd as to fall under the category of “professing themselves to be wise they became as fools” (Romans 1.22). Since deism has rightly been abandoned by everyone, only theism and naturalism remain as reasonable options.

Recent authors—scientists like Gerald Schroder[62] and Stephen Meyer[63] for example--have convincingly argued that the simplest and earliest forms of life were so incredibly complex, and appeared so early in the evolutionary time frame, that it is scientifically (statistically) impossible that such complex life evolved as a result of natural selection and chance alone. Even assuming that natural selection and chance were capable of producing such complexity, there just wasn’t nearly enough time from the Big Bang to the appearance of life on earth for this degree of complexity to have appeared.[64] Schroder’s arguments were so convincing that the world-renowned, atheist philosopher, Anthony Flew, has abandoned his atheism![65]

I agree with Sire, therefore, that the only viable worldview is some form of theism. But Sire only discusses Christian theism. Islam is also a theistic worldview and yet fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity[66] regularly produce diametrically opposite behaviors.[67] After all, if you honestly believe that God demands that you bring the entire world into submission to God—peacefully if possible, but violently if necessary,[68]—your behavior is likely to be different than if you believe that God calls you to make disciples of all nations, loving even your enemies. This is an aspect of the theistic worldview that really needs to be addressed in future editions of Sire’s book.

Fourth, I am a little concerned that the worldview we are beginning to see in a few of our students is a form of postmodern theism. My concern is with professing Christian students who seem to believe in a god of their own preferences; often a warm, fuzzy, grandmotherly kind of god who is completely non-judgmental and infinitely tolerant. Some of my students have admitted that their own personal revelations from God are more authoritative for them than Scripture.

This worldview may work something like this: I don’t like the idea of hell. No problem. My god doesn’t have a hell.[69] It is not compassionate to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. My god supports loving homosexual relationships.

What about lying, cheating, illegal downloading of music, or sex before marriage? My god is a tolerant and compassionate friend who understands and loves me no matter what I do. Just as I am, without one plea, except that god would let me be—until I need Him or Her, that is.[70]

I am tempted to blame this view of an all-tolerant God on the influence of postmodernism,[71] but that may not be entirely fair since people have treated God this way since Old Testament times. I fear, however, that in modern times Evangelical churches have placed so much emphasis on the love of God[72] and on our personal experiences with God, that we have neglected the biblical teaching on the holiness of God and the biblical foundation on which that doctrine rests. I think this unbalance needs to be corrected with a renewed emphasis on God’s holiness and on the Bible as the ultimate revelation from God and the final authority for all faith and practice. As the Crown College and C&MA doctrinal statements both assert:

“The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.”[73]

This is the foundation for a Christian worldview. The extent to which we drift from this is the extent to which our worldview begins to slide off its foundation.

Finally, if Christian college faculty are to integrate “faith and learning,” that is, if we are to ensure that we are teaching biology, business, communication, psychology, music, etc. from perspectives that are consistent with a biblical worldview,[74] we must be firmly grounded in a deep understanding of that worldview.[75] Although it can be a struggle just to keep up in one’s own discipline, Christian faculty must also regularly read in the areas of Christian philosophy,[76] theology[77] and biblical studies.[78] My impression is that overall Crown’s faculty is much more biblically grounded than faculty at many other Christian colleges. My exhortation would be—as Paul instructed the Thessalonians, albeit in a different context—that we “increase more and more” (1 Thess. 4.10).

Works Cited

The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Credo Reference. Web. 06 August 2011.

Blomberg, Craig. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville : B&H Academic, 2009.

Borg, Marcus. The Heart of Christianity. San Francisco : HarperSanFrancisco, 2003

Bruce. F.F. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2000.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1960.

Dever, Mark. The Message of the New Testament. Wheaton : Crossway, 2005.

Eddy, Paul and Gregory Boyd. The Jesus Legend. Grand Rapids : Baker, 2007.

Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine, edited by Arnold Hustad. Grand Rapids :

Baker, 2001.

Evans, Craig. Fabricating Jesus; How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 2006.

Flew, Antony. There is a God; How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York : HarperOne, 2007.

Funk, Robert. Honest to Jesus. San Francisco : HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.

Geisler, Norman L. and William D. Watkins. Worlds Apart; A Handbook on Worldviews. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids : Baker, 1989.

Gundry, Robert. Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 2003.

Habermas, Gary. The Case for the Resurrection. Grand Rapids : Kregel, 2004.

Horsley, Richard. Jesus and Empire; The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2003.

Ingolfsland, Dennis. “A Summary Critique: The Gospel according to Borg” in the Christian Research Journal. 28:6 (2005): 44-46.

---. Buddhism Plain and Simple. http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2010/11/ buddhism-plain-and-simple.html

---. Did the Bible Once Teach Reincarnation. http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com /2009/04/reincarnation-in-bible.html

---. The Hidden Face of God. http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2009/04/hidden-face-of-god.html

---. Jesus, Muhammad and Fundamentalism. Amazon Kindle Book, 2010.

---. Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer. http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com /2010/09/signature-in-cell-by-stephen-c-meyer.html

---. Understanding Fundamentalism. http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2010/08/ understanding-fundamentalism.html

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus; The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. New York : Harper Collins, 1996.

Hagen, Steve. Buddhism; Plain & Simple. New York : Broadway Books, 1999.

Kingsland, Venika. The Simple Guide to Hinduism. Folkestone, England : Global Books, 1997.

McClain, Shirley. Out on a Limb. New York : Bantam, 1986.

Meyer, Stephen. Signature in the Cell. New York : HarperOne, 2009.

Moreland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 2003.

Nash, Ronald. Worldviews in Conflict. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1992.

Naugle, David. K. Worldview; The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2002.

Phillips, W. Gary, William Brown and John Stonestreet. Making Sense of Your World. Salem, WI : Sheffield, 2008.

Schroeder, Gerald. The Hidden Face of God. New York : Free Press, 2001.

Schussler Fiorenza, Elizabeth. Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation. New York : Continuum, 2000.

Sire, James. Naming the Elephant; Worldview as a concept. Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 2004.

--. The Universe Next Door; A Basic Worldview Catalog. Fourth edution. Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 2004.

Spiegel, James S. The Making of an Atheist; How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. Chicago : Moody, 2010.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 2007.

Walsh, Brian J. and J. Richard Middleton. The Transforming Vision; Shaping a Christian World view. Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 1984.

Wenham, David. Paul; Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1995.

Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2003.

[1] In my opinion, one of the best scholarly worldview books in print is Worldview; the History of a Concept by David Naugle which is why I have quoted from it extensively in the footnotes below.

[2] The term “worldview” “is a translation from the German Weltanschauung and was first used by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), but only in passing.” Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) was the first to use it “as a major focus” (Sire, Naming, 23). The importance of worldviews is argued by Gordon Clark, “…if Christianity is to be defended against the objections of other philosophies, the only adequate method will be comprehensive. While it is of great importance to defend particular points of interest, these specific defenses will be insufficient. In addition to these details there is also needed a picture of the whole into which they fit” (Gordon Clark as quoted in Naugle 14).

[3] Some philosophers have rejected the notion of worldviews but David Naugle comments, “The irony, of course, is that Wittgenstein, like Husserl, Heidegger, and any others who have sought to jettison the necessity of a worldview, is unable to escape some reasonably fixed position on what reality and the world is really like” (Naugle 161-162).

[4] It is important to note that even the concept of worldview is worldview dependent. As Naugle writes, “…any theory or definition of ‘worldview’ is itself a function of the actual worldview of the theorist or the definer” (Naugle 253). Naugle cites the third edition of Sire’s The Universe Next Door as an example: “His volume is structured around the answers of eight different worldviews to seven big philosophical questions. The questions begin with a metaphysical or ontological query about the nature of ultimate reality or being; move on to interrogations about the cosmos, humanity, death, knowledge and ethics; and conclude with an inquiry about history…Critics pointed out that the way he presented the issues to be investigated at the outset of his volume determined the scope of his analysis…His ‘metanalysis’ revealed that the order of his interrogatives was premodern and theistic, commencing with metaphysics or ontology as the primary and all-determinative category to which the other concerns about humanity, knowledge, history, and so on were subordinated” (Naugle 255). “As a Christian and ‘premodernist,’ he bagan with being; but had he been a modernist, his analysis would have likely begun with epistemology; and had he been a postmodernist, it would probably have commenced with language and/or meaning” (Naugle 256). Sire acknowledges this in the fourth edition of his book. Naugle points out that Kierkegaard, Dilthey, Nietzsche, Husserl, Jaspers, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein all did the same thing (Naugle 256). Naugle warns that the whole concept of worldview is not native to the Bible but has been imported from elsewhere and is loaded with modern and postmodern baggage. He asks, “are believers aware of the relativistic and privatized connotations that ‘worldview has acquired over time?” His answer, “Probably not.” But just as Augustine appropriated pagan ideas for use in the church, Naugle believes that the concept of worldview can be purged of modern and premodern baggage and used in the church as well (256-258).

[5] Naugle agrees that the core issue in a Christian worldview is the heart, “I propose that the heart and its content as the center of human consciousness creates and constitutes what we commonly refer to as Weltanschauung” (269-270).

[6] In his book, Naming the Elephant; Worldview as a concept Sire makes four revisions to his definition: “First is a recognition that a worldview is not just a set of basic concepts but a fundamental orientation of the heart. Second, is an explicit insistence that at the deepest root of a worldview is its commitment to and understanding of the ‘really real.’ Third is a consideration of behavior in determination of what one’s own or another’s world view really is. Fourth is a broader understanding of how worldviews are grasped as story, not just as abstract propositions” (Sire, Naming 13).

[7] The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology defines worldview as “Within a culture, a worldview is a general way of looking upon the universe and our relation to it, a general set of assumptions about the meaning of life, about what is important, and about how things work.”

[8] Sire admits that the worldviews covered in this book, “are ideal types outlined for heuristic purposes, not because anyone, including myself, holds precisely the worldview described” (Sire, Naming 93).

[9] Authors come up with different questions for assessing worldviews. For example, Walsh and Middleton suggest the following, “(1) Who am I? Or what is the nature, task and purpose of human beings? (2) Where am I? Or, what is the nature of the world and universe I live in? (3) What’s wrong? Or, what is the basic problem or obstacle that keeps me from attaining fulfillment? In other words, how do I understand evil? And (4) What is the remedy? Or, how is it possible to overcome this hindrance to my fulfillment? In other words, how do I find salvation? (Walsh 35). One’s worldview can even affect the questions one asks to assess a worldview. The book by Walsh and Middleton is a good example. The questions they ask are clearly presupposing a Christian worldview. For example, in response to the question, “What’s wrong” a Deist may respond saying that the question presupposes that something is wrong when many deists would say that nothing is wrong—this is just the way nature is. In response to the fourth question about how to find salvation, a naturalist may say that this question presupposes that we need to be saved in the first place. While Sire has also been attacked for developing questions from within a Christian worldview, I think he does a much better job at being neutral than, for example, Walsh and Middleton..

[10] The order of questions is important. Sire explains, “Ontology must precede epistemology in worldview formation. If it does not, we are basing our worldview on the fragile structure of the human ego, that is, on the autonomy of human reason, which really means the autonomy of each person’s human ego or each person’s sense of reason” (Sire, Naming 72-73).

[11] “…a Christian worldview is not the same thing as a Christian theology. Both deal with the same or similar issues. A worldview includes a consciousness of a pretheoretical dimension. A theology normally assumes this dimension rather than inquiring into the nature of its presuppositions” (Sire, Naming 70). For an extensive philosophical discussion of a “Christian Worldview” see Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J.P Moreland and William Lane Craig.

[12] Naugle does an outstanding job summarizing a truly Christian worldview in his chapter on “Theological Reflections on ‘Worldview” (Naugle 253-290).

[13] Sire argues, however, that deists can’t have it both ways. “Either (1) all knowledge comes from experience and we, not being infinite, cannot know the system as a whole, or (2) some knowledge comes from another source” which would tend to undermine deism (Sire, Universe 52-53).

[14] See also Ronald Nash’s discussion of naturalism in his book, Worldviews in Conflict.

[15] It is important to note that naturalism, no less than theism, begins with faith—faith in the presupposition that God does not exist. If God were shown to exist, the entire system of naturalism would immediately be exposed as absurd. The arguments of scientists like Gerald Schroder, Stephen Meyer, et al show that naturalism takes an enormous, not to mention unscientific, leap of faith.

[16] Naturalists tend to approach science as if scientific investigation were an entirely neutral and objective endeavor. Thomas Kuhn, however, “made intellectual history and changed the course of modern thought” by showing that science “is conditioned by various scholarly traditions and a host of more or less intangible historical and human factors.” Nicholas Wolterstorff, reacting to Kuhn, said, “When I first read…The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,…my main reaction was, ‘Well of course.” Naugle summarizes Worlterstorff’s reaction saying, “Since a faith always precedes and governs understanding (Augustine), since original sin has noetic implications (Calvin), and since spiritual regeneration, or the lack thereof, affects the total constitution of a person (Kuyper), this theological tradition would deny theoretical autonomy and affirm its ‘worldview’ dependency” (Naugle 207).

[17] James Spiegel summarizes Alvin Plantinga on this topic saying that Plantinga, “…begins by noting that the naturalist must embrace Darwinism. This is because, in ruling out the supernatural, there are no alternatives to explain living organisms. For the Naturalist, Darwinism is the only game in town. Now if the Darwinist story is correct, then everything about us formed through natural selection; every trait of every living thing is the result of survival of the fittest. Characteristics are preserved only if they provide a distinct competitive advantage in the struggle to reach reproductive maturity…. Given Darwinism, even our cognitive faculties must be the result of natural selection. Every aspect of human brain physiology and psychology was entirely fixed by its survival value. This means that nowhere along the human evolutionary path did a concern for truth necessarily come into play…There is no necessary connection between the survival potential of a cognitive system and the truth of the beliefs it produces.” “This means that if naturalism is true, we have no reason to believe it is true. If there ever was a self-defeating worldview, this is it” (Spiegel 58, 59).

[18] Existential philosophers, describing the nihilism that comes from a naturalistic view of life “have depicted life in the cosmos in…alarming terms as a ‘plague’ (Camus), or as the experience of unmitigated ‘nausea’ (Sartre). Despair, anxiety, and boredom are the emotional companions of life” (Naugle 232).

[19] Or, as Stanley Rosen says, “If nothing is real, the real is nothing; there is no difference between the written lines of a text and the blank spaces between them” (Stanley Rosen as quoted in Naugle 320).

[20] What this means in practice can be seen in the life and works of Jesus scholar, Marcus Borg. Borg attends church with his wife, an Episcopal priest, where he worships, prays, and recites the creed, which affirms the virgin conception, the resurrection and fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Then he goes to teach at Oregon State University where he denies all of it. For Borg, the “Jesus of history” that he proclaims in his classes, was a Jewish mystic who was not, and did not believe himself to be, the Messiah or Son of God. In church, however, Borg takes an existential leap of faith and worships the “Christ of faith” of the creeds.

[21] Marcus Borg, is a perfect example of this. Borg writes, “believe whatever you want about whether the [resurrection] story happened this way; but now let’s talk about what the story means” (Borg 57). Borg is quite clear that he does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. For my review of this book, see: http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2009/04/heart-of-christianity.html originally published as “A Summary Critique: The Gospel according to Borg” in the Christian Research Journal. 28:6 (2005): 44-46.

[22] On one level, Sire is absolutely right. Paul argued that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, our preaching is in vain, your faith is in vain, you are still in your sins, and dead loved ones have perished (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). But Sire seems to have misunderstood the argument. For example, theologians who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus would respond saying that the world is overflowing with stories that never happened but are filled with meaning, e.g. Grimm’s fairy tales, many of Shakespeare’s plays, or Star Trek movies.

[23] An example of an existential treatment of Jesus is found in a book by Luke Timothy Johnson. Johnson does a good job defending Jesus from the attacks of naturalist and deconstructionist critics but takes an existential leap of faith when he concludes that our “faith is confirmed, not by the establishment of facts about the past, but by the reality of Christ’s power in the present” (Johnson 143). Traditional theists would agree that our faith is supported by the power of Christ in the present, but would add that if our faith in Jesus is not also supported by facts, then faith in Jesus may not be much different than faith in Santa Claus!

[24] Or “Atma.” A term that comes from the Rig-Veda meaning “breath” (Kingsland 47).

[25] Venika Kingsland, a Hindu author, explains, “Hindus believe in one God—Brahman—the Supreme, One without a second, the Singularity. Brahman is described as nirguana—without any attributes. However, just as all human beings have their own perspective, they may also have their own personal or individual god. These gods are described as being saguna—with attributes” (Kingsland 17).

[26] Kingsland describes one of these rituals called an “arti ceremony “which consists of waving a lighted lamp in front of the murti (image of a deity) as an offering of light. Before worship, a small amount of water is taken in the palm of the right hand and sipped, invoking the name of Vishnu.” This is done three times and is sometimes followed by a hymn. If done in a temple, as opposed to a home, it is then customary “to walk once clockwise around the murti” (Kingsland 67).

[27] Steve Hagen, a Zen Buddhist priest says that there are no absolutes. There is no “unchanging ‘good’ and ‘bad.” These are just value judgments and beliefs “based on limited knowledge.” The solution is to act out of “Wholeness.” How we are to act out of “Wholeness” when, by Hagen’s own admission, we can’t see the whole, is not clear. (Hagen 42).

[28] Kingsland explains that Karma “is synonymous with the consequences of any action—be they right or wrong. There is no concept of guilt or sin in the way it is commonly perceived in the West…Everyone has to accept responsibility for their own actions” (Kingsland 46).

[29] Sire’s explanation seems to be a bit different than the explanation given by Kingsland who says that “For Hindus, religion is not an alternative to the world, it is primarily the means of improving their existence in it. Hindus believe that the individual reincarnates under conditions created through the history of their own past behaviours. Each incarnation provides an opportunity to be born into a higher varna and better circumstances” (Kingsland, 46).

[30] Steve Hagen is a Zen Priest. See my critique of his book, “Buddhism, Plain & Simple” at http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2010/11/buddhism-plain-and-simple.html

[31] Someone once quipped that “Nothing is the sort of thing rocks dream about.”

[32] “Zen proclaims that because consciousness is always conscious of change and never of permanence, change is all that is permanent; in other words nothing is permanent. This is raised to a philosophic principle. The only permanent ‘thing’ is not a ‘thing’ at all. It is an absence of ‘thingishness.’ It is the Void” (Sire, Naming 150).

[33] Hagen discusses disputes among Hindu philosophers regarding the nature of Atman. Some thought atman to be eternal, “an everlasting core in each of us, temporarily housed in a body that is subject to death and decay. Others argued that there was “no such entity as the atman” and that there is no “enduring self.” Haden adds, “Furthermore, if we buy the notion of a creator, beyond the bickering this belief engenders, we face the problem of determining what, if anything, might be expected of us by such a being…” Hagen says that the Buddha came up with a “middle way” which holds that “both the assertion of an eternal self (atman) and the denial of such a self (anatman)…are merely concepts we construct out of our longing, loathing, and ignorance.” The problem is our conception of the self as an “entity that doesn’t change.” By holding on to this unchanging concept of self “we live in defiance of Reality” which is one reason we suffer (Hagen 119-127).

[34] Ronald Nash also includes a discussion of the New Age Movement in his book Worldviews in Conflict 130-146).

[35] Leffel argues that the New Age Movement, “Having evolved rapidly along with the rest of culture…has now moved almost completely into the sphere of the postmodern. Today, New Age consciousness and postmodernism share and overlapping philosophical base” (Leffel, Jim, “Postmodernism and ‘The Myth of Progress’: Two Visions” in McCallum 50.

[36] See my review of Shirley MacLaine’s view of reincarnation as presented in her book, Out on a Limb, at my personal blog: http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2009/04/reincarnation-in-bible.html

[37] Leffel and McCallum quote New Age author Gary Springfield as explaining, “The visualization process creates out of etheric matter something in fact. That is the beauty and power of visualization—we are creating out of etheric matter. As we create that powerfully enough within etheric matter, it becomes reality” (Jim Leffel and Dennis McCallum, McCallum 210.

[38] I can’t help thinking of the old story about a psychotic patient in a mental hospital who thinks he is a poached egg. The psychologist tries to reason with the man by asking if eggs bleed. After thinking about it for a while the man concedes that poached eggs do not bleed. The psychologist then takes a needle and pricks the man’s finger. The man is shocked and exclaims, “I guess poached eggs do bleed!”

[39] This phrase in Sire apparently originated with Jean-Francios Lyotard. Naugle writes, “What remains for the postmodern denizen is a plethora of socially and linguistically constructed meaning systems, each unprivileged, nonhegemenous, and thoroughly tolerated” (Naugle 174).

[40] One expression of this in education is the shift from teacher as the “authoritative transmitters” of knowledge to teachers as “facilitators and ‘co-constructors’ of knowledge.” In postmodernism “the knowledge constructed by learners, teachers, or scientists are all of equal worth” (DeLashmutt and Roger Braund, “Postmodern Impact: Education,” in McCallum 99, 97). We see this most clearly in the strong emphasis many educators now place on group learning .

[41] Sire explains, “But apart from our linguistic systems we can know nothing. All language is a human construct” (Sire, Universe 221). Jim Leffel responds to the postmodern challenge saying, “Postmodernists, remember, begin by asserting that all human thought is rooted in language. Consequently, they say, no reasoning is possible without the ability to understand and use words. But here we find helpful insight from developmental psychology. In surveying key research in infant psychology, Donald McIntosh states that infants recognize a world of objects and events. He shows how research indicates infants can think even at a prelinguistic stage of development. That is, before they can speak. Research indicates that children want to acquire language because of an already existing framework of thought. How different these findings are from postmodern speculations. Instead of our thoughts being shaped by the words we learn, research actually shows that what we learn motivates us to acquire language” (Leffel, Jim. “Postmodernism and ‘The Myth of Progress’: Two Visions” in McCallum 54.

[42] In his discussion on epistemology, Naugle relates the joke about three umpires in a bar discussing the game when “one says, ‘There’s balls and there’s strikes and I call ’em the way they are.’ Another says, ‘There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ’em as I see ’em.’ The third says, ‘There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ until I call ’em.” Naugle likens the first position to what he calls, naïve or commonsense realism—the idea that “comprehension of the cosmos is direct and accurate, unaffected by worldview presuppositions or any other subjective influences.” The last position Naugle likens to “creative antirealism” in which “Worldviews…are all there all, belief systems that are reified and sustain no real connection to the cosmos.” Naugle likens the second position to “critical realism” (the position he advocates) which “posits an objectively existing world and the possibility of trustworthy knowledge of it, but also recognizes the prejudice that inevitably accompanies human knowing and demands an ongoing critical conversation about the essentials of one’s outlook” (Naugle 322-324).

[43] “Much of postmodernism—Derridean deconstruction in particular—is geared to the task of enabling individuals and societies to realize that they have created their own worlds, and that there is nothing transcendent, permanent, natural, or supernatural about them.” This would mean that all worldviews are merely human fabrications (Naugle 179, 180).

[44] This nonsense has devastating consequences especially in the fields of biblical studies (when the objective is no longer to determine what the author intended to communicate, any interpretation is possible!) and constitutional law (where original intent is replaced with the idea of interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document”). When the Constitution is divorced from its original context and interpreted solely in light of modern culture, for all practical purposes, we no longer have a Constitution and, therefore, we no longer have the protection from government that the Bill of Rights was designed to provide.

[45] Naugle summarizes Foucault’s thinking: “Every human discourse is a power play, every social arrangement oppressive, and every cultural setting tyrannical” (Naugle 183). “In skeptical Foucaultian terms, worldviews are merely the linguistic constructions of a power elite” (Naugle 184).

[46] Psychologist Jim Fidelibus describes postmodernism as “culturally determined linguistic constructivism.” Constructivism, he says, “is the theory that the mind doesn’t possessively take in reality, but actively ‘constructs’ reality in its process of understanding….‘Linguistic’ constructivism implies that this assembly process is determined by language,” therefore, “In its purer forms, postmodernism promotes the idea that language not only influences perceptions but creates it. For all intents and purposes, since culture creates language, and language is our only means to perceive reality, culture creates reality” (Fidelibus, Jim. “Being of Many Minds: The Postmodern Impact on Psychotherapy” in McCallum 46-147).

[47] Dennis McCallum, though very critical of postmodernism (and rightly so), discusses six important observations by postmodernists: “1. Without the infinite-personal creator God of the Bible, knowledge and reason do indeed become uncertain.” “2. Modernists’ faith in human ‘progress’ is misplaced.” “3. People are more subjective than they like to admit.” “4. Our culture can, and often does, blind our eyes to truth obvious to other cultures and which, in retrospect, may also be clear to us.” “5. “People are social beings, and our social or cultural setting shapes and informs our values and thinking.” “6. Blind faith in our legal status quo is unwarranted.” McCallum adds, however, that “even if we admit postmodern scholars have demonstrated some valid points…Seen in the larger picture, postmodernism is nothing less than the death of truth.” What follows is an excellent critique of postmodernist thought (McCallum 241-258).

[48] For a brief, but good discussion on “self-referential absurdity” see Nash 84-88.

[49] I would add that it is also a power play designed to discredit all other metanarratives.

[50] For example, Naugle observes that Wittgenstein “uses language which presumably connects with reality to suggest that no use of language really connects with reality” (Naugle 162).

[51] Deconstructionism abounds in Jesus Research but a prime example is Robert Funk in his book, Honest to Jesus. Funk argues for a methodology which isolates Gospel periscopes, ripping them from their contexts and re-interpreting them (often very creatively) apart from any context and often in contradiction to the Gospel context. In Jesus and Empire, Richard Horsley cogently points out that if a book on Martin Luther King were written based solely on isolated sayings taken out of their social and literary context we would not have an adequate understanding of the great civil rights leader or know why he was important (Horsley 56-58).

[52] Psychologist Jim Fidelibus is much more direct. After his review of postmodernist influence in psychology he warns, “Postmodernism is a stealth destroyer. It may seem open-minded and tolerant on the surface, but with its denial of the individual and its fascination with power, the makings of manipulation are all present. People may not recognize its danger until it’s too late” (Fidelibus, Jim. “Being of Many Minds: The Postmodern Impact on Psychotherapy” in McCallum 157).

[53] A prime example of postmodernism in Jesus research is the work of Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza. She makes no attempt to hide the fact that she is attempting to “reenvision” Jesus along feminist lines. She argues that because of the dominant, oppressive, patriarchal culture of the time, the male Gospel writers deliberately suppressed the work and status of women in Jesus’ group. We must, therefore, reimagine what the status and contributions of Jesus’ earliest female followers must have been. For Schussler Fiorenza this re-imagination is as good as history (Schussler Fiorenza 2000).

[54] Naugle asks several questions of postmodernity: “(1) Does not postmodernism assume a naturalistic worldview as the basis of its assertions? (2) Is not the postmodern denial of the cogency of any worldview itself a worldview, and therefore self-defeating? (3) What implications does the Christian Weltanschauung have upon understanding the nature of language and the accessibility of a transtextual reality, especially with the aid of revelation? (4) On the basis of this revelation, does not Christianity have a much better story to tell than postmodernism, indeed a true one, especially in announcing the good news of the existence of God, the sacramental nature of the cosmos, the dignity of human persons as imago Dei, and the hope of a comprehensive redemption in the work of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit?” (Naugle 186).

[55] Since everyone has their own personal worldview and their worldviews often change in various ways as they grow older, the number of personal worldviews could be, for all practical purposes, described as infinite. Sire argues, however, that there are only a limited number of answers that can be given to his worldview questions—for example, Sire writes, “to the question of prime reality, only two basic answers can be given: either it is the universe that is self-existent and has always existed, or it is a transcendent God who is self-existent and has always existed” (Sire, Universe 243). So in a broad sense, Sire argues that the number of worldview options is finite.

[56] Geisler and Watkins provides helpful discussion on some worldviews that Sire does not cover, like the finite, evolving god of process theology, in which the universe is not created by God but is like God’s body; or the limited god of “Finite Godism” who is not powerful enough to deal with evil; or the multiple gods of polytheism (Geisler, 107-146, 187-253). It seems to me, however, that these could be subsumed under the broader topic of theism.

[57] Ronald Nash suggests three criteria for testing a worldview: 1) The test of reason, i.e. consistency and the law of noncontradiction, 2) The test of experience divided into a) “The Test of the outer world,” i.e. “We have a right to expect worldviews to touch base with our experience of the world outside us” and b) “The Test of the Inner world,” i.e. worldviews “need to fit what we know about ourselves,” e.g. “I am a being who thinks, hopes, experiences pleasure and pain, believes, desires…is often conscious of right and wrong….” 3) The Test of Practice, i.e. “can the person who professes that worldview live consistently in harmony with the system he professes?” (Nash 55-63).

[58] Naugle suggests the following questions for evaluating a worldview: First, “Do the propositions that make up a Weltanschauung agree with each other? Are they rationally coherent and non-contradictory.” Second, Does the worldview fit with reality, and is it capable of offering cogent explanations or interpretations of the totality of things?” Third, “Does the worldview work? Is it livable?” (Naugle 327).

[59] Sire doesn’t mention John Calvin in this context, but I have to think he would have agreed with Calvin’s statement that faith “is more of the heart than of the brain, and more of the disposition than of the understanding” (Calvin, Institutes, III.2.8).

[60] Phillips and Brown provide a more simplified version of worldviews than Sire. In Making Sense of Your World they categorize worldviews in terms of their belief about what Sire would call the really real. With regard to beliefs in God, the primary choices are: 1) theism (God or gods exist), 2) naturalism (God or gods do not exist) and 3) what they call transcendentalism (everything is god). Theism would include Judaism, Islam, Christianity and polytheism. Transendentalism would include Hinduism, Buddhism, and the New Age Movement. Naturalism would include its offshoots such as nihilism and existentialism. In the second version of their book, edited by Stonestreet, they include postmodernism as a separate worldview but I think postmodernism could be classified as just another offshoot of naturalism. Dooyewerd had simplified it even further arguing, “Thus at the basis of philosophy and theory, there is no historical pluralism of worldviews but only two ‘religious’ ground-motives in antithetical opposition. This ‘religious’ antithesis, i.e., of man converted to God versus man averted from God, is decisive for all life and thought (Herman Dooyeweerd as quoted in Naugle 26).

[61] Naugle surveys the biblical meaning of heart saying, “The preponderance of biblical passages, however, speak of the heart as the central, defining element of the human person…It occurs approximately 855 times in the Old Testament, where it stands for ‘all aspects of a person.’ In Hebraic thought the heart is comprehensive in its operations as the seat of the intellectual (e.g., Prov. 2:10a; 14:33); Dan. 10:12), affective (e.g., Exod. 4:14; Ps 13:2; Jer. 15:16), volitional (e.g., Judg. 5:15; 1 Chron. 29:18; Prov. 16:1), and religious life of a human being (e.g., Deut. 6:5; 2 Chron. 16:9; Ezek. 6:9; 14:3).” Naugle continues, “According to various New Testament authors, the heart is the psychic center of human affections (Matt. 22:37-39; John 14:1, 27; 2 Cor. 2:4), the source of spiritual life (Acts 8:21; Rom 2:29; 2 Cor. 3:3), and the seat of the intellect and the will (Rom. 1:21; 2 Cor. 9:7; Heb. 4:12)” (Naugle 268-269).

[62] The Hidden Face of God. By Gerald Schroeder. For a brief example, see my blog post at http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2009/04/hidden-face-of-god.html

[63] Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer. For my brief review of the book, see http://dennis-ingolfsland .blogspot .com/2010/09/signature-in-cell-by-stephen-c-meyer.html

[64] For example, Schroeder writes, “When a specific protein is needed by a cell, a chemical messenger is sent from the outer cell, through a pore in the nuclear membrane, into the nucleus. How the messenger knows to go to the nucleus remains a mystery. This messenger finds the needed chromosome (one of the twenty-three pairs), locks onto that chromosome, and moves along, nucleotide by nucleotide, until it comes to the specific sequence of bases that marks the beginning of the gene that codes for the desired protein. At this stage, the signaling molecule changes shape, and in doing so allows—or causes—and enzyme called DNA-dependent RNA polymerase (I’ll call it RNA-P) to join the action. The RNA-P opens the helix, reads each nucleotide base, selects the correct complementary base from among the four types floating in the intracellular slurry, concurrently selects…the molecules that make up the spine of the lengthening strand of mRNA being manufactured, trailing behind the RNA-P, joins the just-selected base to the spine, takes the portion of DNA that has just been read and reseals it to the parallel DNA strand which it was separated, opens the portion of DNA to be read next, reads it, and continues the juggling act til it reaches a coded stop order…And RNA-P does this manufacturing at fifty bases a second…Keep in mind, this entire sequence is performed by molecules reading molecules, molecules selecting molecules, molecules walking along with other molecules. Don’t project too much brain power or body power into this system. It’s not little people in there. It’s simply molecules that somehow seem to act like little knowledgeable people, as if they had a wisdom of their own. Which they do. This is only one small part of a much more complicated process that takes place in what was once called the “simple cell.” At one time scientists used to imagine that, given enough time (billions of years) simple cells could evolve by themselves purely by chance or natural selection. The kicker here is that “it all developed so very rapidly, almost simultaneously with the appearance of liquid water on earth. We have absolutely phenomenal complexity, not after billions of years of evolution, but at the very beginning of the entire process!” (Schroeder 193-194).

[65] See There is a God; How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew. Anthony Flew is like the ideological and intellectual grandfather to modern atheist apologists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.

[66] I am referring to “fundamentalist Christianity” in the broad sense of those who believe in the historic doctrines of the Christian faith, e.g. the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the second coming, salvation by grace through faith, etc.

[67] See my Amazon kindle book: Jesus, Muhammad and Fundamentalism. See also my blog post on “Understanding Fundamentalism”: http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/2010/08/understanding-fundamentalism.html

[68] For example, see the Qur’an suras 2.190-193; 2.244; 3.149; 4.91; 8.59; 9.5; 61.4; 66.9.

[69] This is not a slap at scholars who honestly wrestle with the problem of hell and attempt to come to grips with the problem from what they believe is a biblical perspective. My comment is criticism of professing Christians who would simply dismiss the entire doctrine simply because they don’t like it.

[70] None of this is new, of course. When Nietzsche proclaimed that God was dead, he did not mean that a literal god had died. He meant that the idea of God was “no longer having an effect on how people behaved. People might say they believed in God, but their thoughts and actions betrayed their functional atheism” (Sire, Naming 27).

[71] “Religion based only on personal experience and ‘what’s true for me’ is perfectly compatible with the postmodern worldview” (Jim Leffel and Dennis McCallum, “Postmodern Impact: Religion,” in McCallum 203.

[72] It is instructive contrast Paul who began his gospel in Romans by devoting the first three chapters to the sinfulness of man in falling short of God’s holiness; with Campus Crusade for Christ which began their “Four Spiritual Laws” with “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” Whether through the Four Spiritual Laws or through other means, Americans (Christian and non-Christians alike) have been thoroughly indoctrinated in idea of the love of God, but they often seem to give little thought to the holiness of God. But apart from a deep sense of the holiness of God, we will not be confronted with the awfulness of our sin. Unless we are personally convicted by the awfulness of our sin we will not repent. Unless we repent, we will not be saved from the wrath of God (Rom. 1.18) regardless of how loving we believe God to be. “Francis Schaeffer in his book, Death in the City, dealt with the question, ‘What would you do if you met a really modern man on a train and you had just an hour to talk with him about the Gospel?’ Schaeffer said, ‘I would spend forty-five or fifty minutes to really show him his dilemma; to show him that he is even more dead than he thinks he is; that he is morally dead because he is separated from the

God who exists. Often it takes a long time to bring a person to the place where he understands the negative. And unless he understands what’s wrong, he will not be ready to listen to and understand the positive” (quoted in “The Motive for Evangelism” by W.C. Champion, http://goo.gl/xC7Dd).

[73] http://www.cmalliance.org/about/beliefs/doctrine

[74] “Christianity is more than a church polity, theological system, or pietistic program, but is in fact a view of the entire cosmos with something significant to say about everything” (Naugle 251).

[75] Of course they also have to be aware of the worldview assumptions of their own discipline. In psychology, for example, Naugle comments, “any program of psychotherapy—Freudian, Jungian, or otherwise—is established upon fundamental worldview assumptions, and philosophical underpinnings as such are extremely influential factors in the overall psychotherapeutic process” (Naugle 222).

[76] For Christian philosophy, a good place to start would be Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig.

[77] For Christian theology, a good place to start would be Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson, edited by Arnie Hustad.

[78] For my area of New Testament studies, I would recommend: The Message of the New Testament by Mark Dever, Survey of the New Testament by Robert Gundry, Jesus and the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel, Fabricating Jesus by Craig Evans, The Jesus Legend by Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd, The Case for the Resurrection by Gary Habermas, The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free by F.F. Bruce, Paul; Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity by David Wenham.

Mark Driscoll on the Twilight series

2011-08-03T05:03:00.000-07:00

The flawed politics of N.T. Wright

2011-05-17T04:29:00.000-07:00

Apparently the biblical scholar, N.T. Wight, is critical of the U.S. actions against bin Laden. While there is much I appreciate about Wright's work on Jesus, he is definitely out to lunch when it comes to politics. Peter Wehner has written a outstanding article on the issue of church and state. You don't need to be a biblical scholar to understand it.

David Wilkerson's message to Assemblies of God

2011-04-29T06:59:00.000-07:00

I'm always skeptical--maybe I should say "discerning"--of those who claim to be giving direct revelation from God as David Wilkerson does in the following message. I won't pass judgment on whether his message is direct revelation from God, but I do think it is an outstanding article.

For those who don't know, David Wilkerson was the founder of Teen Challenge and the author of the best selling book, The Cross and the Switchblade, about his work with gangs in New York City. Rev. Wilkerson died this week as the result of a fatal head-on car accident.

The following are excerpts of Rev. Wilkerson's article. When you have time, please read the entire article.

The Dangers of The Gospel of Accomodation [sic]

A sermon given by David Wilkerson at an Assemblies of God headquarters chapel service.By David Wilkerson

I am not coming to you as a pastor but with a prophetic word. God so shook me recently with this message that I should bring it somewhere, sometime in Springfield. This morning the Lord, by His Spirit, spoke to my heart that this is the time. He has called me to be one of His watchmen, and I have wept over this and prayed that He will help me deliver the message in a spirit of love. This is not a chastisement but a warning for the Assemblies of God.

A New Gospel

Accommodate means to adapt, to make suitable and acceptable, to make convenient. A gospel of accommodation is creeping into the United States. It’s an American cultural invention to appease the lifestyle of luxury and pleasure. Primarily a Caucasian, suburban gospel, it’s also in our major cities and is sweeping the nation, influencing ministers of every denomination, and giving birth to megachurches with thousands who come to hear a nonconfronting message. It’s an adaptable gospel that is spoon-fed through humorous skits, drama, and short, nonabrasive sermonettes on how to cope—called a seeker-friendly or sinner-friendly gospel.

To begin with, those terms are unscriptural. The gospel of Jesus Christ has always been confronting—there is no such thing as a friendly gospel but a friendly grace.

This new gospel is being propagated by bright, young, talented ministers. They have come upon a formula which states you can go into any town or city; and if you have the right formula, within a short time you can raise a megachurch.

If you are a young man and have certain skills, you find those skills and a part of the city that would best suit you. You move into that area, poll it, and find out what the nonchurchgoers want:

“You don’t like choirs. Well, would you go to a church that didn’t have a choir?” Yes.

“You don’t like to wear suits. Would you go where it’s informal?” Yes.

Then you go to your computer and design a gospel that will not confront but will shoot out the desires and the needs of the people. After you have gathered a handful of people, you keep interviewing them to find out what they want; then you design your message to help people cope with their needs. The program you design is intended to make the church comfortable and friendly for all sinners who wish to attend.

This gospel is fast becoming the most prosperous and flourishing of all religious movements. Thousands attend these churches. The pastor is the CEO, and it becomes a business. They make no bones about it: They are following Madison Avenue tactics and can make a success of it.
-----

Paul’s Warning

Paul warned of the coming of another gospel and another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4). He warned the church that it’s really not another gospel but a perversion of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. If you hear any other gospel, he said, let that preacher be accursed. In other words, no matter how pleasant, how pious, or how sincere, if the message is not the death of sin through the cross of Jesus Christ, let it be accursed.

I tremble when I read in the Scriptures that in the last days Satan is going to come right into the church posing as an angel of light. He’s going to take ministers who, at one time, had the touch of God, and he’s going to transform them into angels of light to become his tool of deception.

That’s frightening. It causes me to fall on my face before God for such false, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. No marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it’s no great thing if ministers also are transformed as the ministers of righteousness whose end shall be according to their works.

Paul said they are going to glory in the flesh, in their bigness, their numbers, their influence, and their contemporariness. They will boast they are contemporary, that there is a gospel that is out of style that doesn’t reach human need anymore. They will glory in the world’s acceptance. Jesus warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15). The context of that warning was: “Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth to life, and few there be that find it” (verse 14).

His warning was to beware of the wolves who are going to say it’s really not that narrow and straight—they are going to come posing as submissive sheep. Jesus put His finger on the cause: ambition—ambitious ravening wolves. In the Greek it means “starved for recognition and quick gratification, quick growth.”

Jesus left no doubt about His meaning. For example, He was addressing a struggling pastor who has worked for years and hasn’t seen the kind of growth he wants to see. A young man with an accommodating gospel moves into town and within a very short time has a megachurch. People are flocking there because there is entertainment; it’s a gospel of fun. I’ve been in some of them. It’s the gospel of entertainment that has no conviction whatsoever. There is very little in their gospel that speaks to sinners of repentance, brokenness, and cross-bearing. A Christ is preached, Jesus’ name is mentioned, but Paul said their’s is another gospel, another Jesus.

-----

God’s Method

Certain men of God met at Antioch to send out men to preach the gospel and establish churches (Acts 13). Here is God’s method:

1. They ministered to the Lord and fasted. This was their planning session—worshiping, fasting, waiting on the Lord, and calling for direction from the Holy Ghost. They did not move until the Holy Ghost spoke. There were no formulas, no surveys, no door-to-door asking people what they wanted and then serving it to them.

2. They prayed—no strategizing, no network, and not one step until the Holy Ghost spoke His mind. Then and only then did they lay hands upon them, anoint them, and send them out in the power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost.

-----

I see three things in the gospel of accommodation:

1. It is the accommodation of man’s love for pleasure.

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers…of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:1–4). The Greek for pleasure is “sensuous, lustful, voluptuous, exciting, gratifying, sensual pleasure.” If you move toward this gospel of accommodation, you are going to have to accommodate the people’s lust because they are not going to give up their love for excitement. They’ve made gods of sports, pleasure, and lust. Unless that is confronted by the gospel of Jesus Christ, unless there is a truth that comes forth, you have to accommodate this lust that is in the American lifestyle.

I was shocked by an article in the New York Times.1 Philip Wogaman, President Clinton’s pastor, said, “Sexual misconduct does not automatically render a leader immoral. Morality should also be judged by indicators like courage, concern for the poor, fostering world peace, running the economy responsibly, and furthering racial equality. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are merely cultural expressions.” In other words, Mr. Clinton has been told that he has enough good indicators to overrule another that would be immoral in his life.God said that men who preach doctrines like these resist the truth; they are men of corrupt minds counterfeiting the faith.

In disbelief I watched a televised Sunday night service of a seeker-friendly church—seeker-friendly by its own admission. To a packed church where thousands attend, the pastor said, “This is fun night, a David Letterman night.” The youth pastor came out and did his monologue as David Letterman. Then they showed 10 of the most boring things teenagers do during preaching. Three of the 10 were throwing spitballs, yawning, and picking their noses. The crowd went crazy. After the service, the pastor brazenly announced, “We’re not here to offend people, but to make church comfortable for everyone.” I wept.

-----

2. This gospel of accommodation accommodates all man’s aversion to self-denial.The gospel of Jesus Christ is one of self-denial. Jesus said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). Self-denial is not something you give. It’s someone you give up—the giving up of yourself, giving up everything you are. It’s a living sacrifice to the Lord Jesus Christ to present your body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. God has every right to say to His church, “If you expect to give Me your body, your resurrected body, all through eternity, I have every right—it’s only reasonable of Me and your reasonable service—to ask your body why you’re here on earth. I want every part of you. I want you to be spiritually minded. I want to possess you.”

The gospel we preach must bring people under the total possession of the Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, it’s a gospel of accommodation.

-----

3. There is an accommodation of man’s offense to the gospel.

The Scriptures state, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense.” Paul spoke of the offense of the Cross. This is the heart of God’s anger. We’re not called to the Cross but to go through the Cross—to experience the same thing Jesus did, not only coming to the Cross but dying and going into the grave with Jesus Christ and then being raised from the dead to a newness of life.

It’s cruel, pastor, to lead sinners to the Cross, tell them they are forgiven by faith, and then allow them to go back to their habits and lusts of the flesh, unchanged and still in the devil’s shackles. If the preaching of grace doesn’t have as its goal the producing of a walk of righteousness, then it’s another gospel, another Jesus.

I listened in horror to a man, who attended one of the largest seeker-friendly churches, being interviewed by CBS. He said, “I come to this church because I’m comfortable. I’m never made to feel uneasy. I bring my Jewish friends and my business friends, and I know nothing will ever be said that will offend them. The best part of it is, the whole thing only lasts an hour.”

-----

May we get our eyes off growth and onto a new revelation of who Jesus is.

The story of Easter

2011-04-24T15:13:00.001-07:00

Introduction:

We just celebrated Easter in which thousands of sermons were preached all over the world on the resurrection of Jesus. It’s a good bet that very few of them mentioned all the apparent inconsistencies and “contradictions” in the gospel accounts of the resurrection. For example,

Matthew says Mary Magdalene and another Mary went to the tomb. Mark says Salome was with them. Luke alone adds Joanna. Only John writes about Mary Magdalene.

Matthew and Mark say the women were met by an angel. Luke says it was two angels.

John says it was still dark. Matthew and Luke say it was early dawn. Mark says the sun had risen.

Luke tells about the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Matthew and John don’t mention this.

Matthew tells about the guards being bribed. The other gospels don’t mention it.

In John, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone. In the other gospels, he appears to the women together.

In Luke the women told the disciples what the angels said about Jesus raising from the dead. In John, Mary Magdalene tells the disciples they have stolen the body and we don’t know where they put it.

Critics never seem to tire of arguing that these stories are hopelessly contradictory and therefore, cannot be believed. Is there an answer to this charge?

First, the argument is all smoke and mirrors. Don’t believe for a minute that if the stories were perfectly in alignment, that the critics would believe them. The real problem is not “inconsistencies” or contradictions. The real problem is unbelief. People refuse to believe that a man rose from the dead so they come up with all kinds of convoluted excuses to justify their unbelief. We know this because the stories about Jesus’ crucifixion contain the same kind of supposed inconsistencies and contradictions as the resurrection story, but there are virtually no Jesus scholars who deny that Jesus was crucified.

The fact is that inconsistencies and contradictions do not necessarily prove that a story is historically unreliable. There were all kinds of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and even contradictions in the 9/11 reports, and yet no one doubts that 9/11 happened. The same is true of virtually all historical events for which there are more than one source.

When historians wanted to find out what happened with the sinking of the Titanic, for example, they didn’t just talk to one eyewitness, they talked to numerous eyewitnesses and even to those who knew eyewitnesses. Historians know that no one source could possibly provide the complete picture of what happened. They have to reconstruct the full picture by piecing together the sources. Sometimes this is difficult to do because the sources--even eyewitness sources--sometimes seem incompatible. Sometimes they seem to flat-out contradict each other. Historians do not automatically conclude that the event didn’t happen.

This is true of virtually any historical event for which there are more than one source. And yet, when Evangelical scholars attempt to reconstruct the story of Jesus' resurrection from Gospel sources, critics charge them with “harmonization.” They say that harmonization is illegitimate. Nonsense! “Harmonization” is what historians do! Contrary to critics repeated assertions, the resurrection stories can be harmonized quite successfully.

Using a little “sanctified imagination” the following story is a reconstruction of the resurrection stories in a way that makes sense of the four Gospel accounts, showing that they are not nearly as inconsistent or contradictory as the critics claim.

The Story of Easter

Many in Jerusalem were undoubtedly awakened by the early morning earthquake. It is hard to imagine that Mary Magdalene and the other women were sleeping very well anyway in light of what had happened to Jesus.

Jesus had died and was placed in a tomb just before the Sabbath began at sunset on Friday. The women were prohibited from anointing the body on the Sabbath, so they would just have to wait until the Sabbath was over on Sunday morning. Surely Jesus deserved a proper burial. That’s the least they could do. In fact, it was all they could do now.

First thing Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Sa’lome, Joanna and Susanna were up gathering spices and other necessities. They headed off toward the tomb while it was still dark. As they talked it suddenly occurred to them: who would move the large stone away from the entrance? They hadn’t thought of that, but these were determined women. They were not about to let a rock stand in their way.

By the time they got to the tomb the sun had just barely risen but it was light enough to see from a distance that the stone had already been rolled away!

That could only mean one thing. The body had been stolen! Mary Magdalene was crushed! She didn’t go any further. She didn’t need to see any more. Mary immediately ran back to the home where the disciples were staying and cried out, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

The disciples were undoubtedly shocked, but they were not sure what to do with this information. What could they do? Mary, overwhelmed with grief, just turned around and walked slowly back to the tomb.

Meanwhile, the other women had cautiously entered the tomb, allowing their eyes to adjust to the darkness. Sure enough, Jesus was gone!

Just then two men suddenly appeared in dazzling white garments. One of them said,

Don’t be afraid—it was too late. They were already terrified—You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here. He is risen as he said.

Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful man, be crucified and on the third day and be raised again.” But go tell his disciples—and Peter—that he is raised from the dead and is going on ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there just as he told you.

The women, still trembling and bewildered, raced back to the home where Jesus’ disciples had been hiding out, saying nothing to the few people who happened to be up at the crack of dawn. The women burst into the room shortly after Mary Magdalene had left to go back to the tomb. They told the disciples about the empty tomb and the angels’ message, but the disciples thought they were speaking nonsense and didn’t believe them.

But, first Mary, now the other women? Peter and John had to see for themselves. They raced to the tomb, passing Mary Magdalene on the way.

John got there first and bent over looking into the tomb. Peter got there right after John and actually went into the tomb. John followed him in. Sure enough, the tomb was empty except for the strips of linen and the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The head cloth had been folded and placed separately from the other linens. Peter and John went back to tell the others.

A little later, Mary Magdalene finally got to the tomb again. This time she bent over to peer into the entrance. Just as she feared, Jesus was indeed gone. She turned around falling to her knees, weeping uncontrollably, tears in her eyes, head in her hands. She didn’t even look up when she heard a man ask, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away and I don’t know where they have put him!” “Sir, if you’ve have carried him away, tell me where you put him, and I will get him”

“Mary.”

Mary turned around and looked up.

Rabboni!!! Mary exclaimed as she jumped up and wrapped her arms tightly around Jesus.

This was not a very politically correct thing to do publicly in those days, so after a while Jesus said, Mary stop holding on to me, for I’ve not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

Mary obeyed and ran back to the disciples to tell them that she had seen the Lord! The other women had already left the home, possibly to tell to tell Mary, Martha and Lazarus in the village of Bethany.

As they were walking along, from out of nowhere, Jesus suddenly met them.

“Greetings,” he said.

Terrified, they fell prostrate to the ground grabbing his feet worshiping him! Jesus said, Don’t be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. They will see me there.”

Meanwhile Cleopas and another man (possibly Luke) also left the house to go on a seven mile journey to Emmaus. As they walked a stranger joined them asking what they had been discussing. Looking downcast Cleopas asked, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and don’t know the things that have happened there?

What things?

So Cleopas explained that Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet, powerful and word and deed before God, and how the chief priests and rulers had handed him over to be crucified.

We had hoped, Cleopas explained, that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. What’s more, it is the third day since all this took place and this morning some of our women amazed us with stories about how they had found the tomb empty and how angels said Jesus was alive! Some of our friends went to the tomb and found it empty just as the women had said.

The man replied, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and the prophets, he explained to them what was said in the Scriptures concerning himself. But they were kept from recognizing him.

When they arrived at their destination, they urged the stranger to stay for supper. He accepted their offer. He took bread, gave thanks and broke it. As he handed it to them, their eyes were opened and they recognized that is was Jesus!

He disappeared from their sight.

The two men immediately returned to Jerusalem. It was getting late as found the disciples and others assembled together. Before they could say anything, the disciples exclaimed to them, “It is true! The Lord has risen! He appeared to Simon!”

Then the two told what had happened on the way to Emmaus and how they finally recognized Jesus as he broke bread.

While they were still talking about all this, Jesus himself stood among them and said, Peace be with you. They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

Jesus said, “Why are you troubled? Look at my hands and feet. It’s me! Touch me and see! A ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

Then he asked, “Do you have anything to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish and he took it and ate it in their presence. Then he said to them,

“This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, that the Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are my witnesses of these things.”

A week later Jesus appeared to the disciples again—this time with Thomas who had not yet seen Jesus alive. Earlier in the week Thomas had said, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it!

Jesus told Thomas, “See my hands? “Put your finger here.” Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

“My Lord and my God,” Thomas exclaimed!

Jesus later appeared to his disciples while they were fishing in the Sea of Galilee. He cooked fish for them on the seashore and invited them to have breakfast with him. He then assured Peter of forgiveness even though Peter had denied him three times.

Finally, after various appearances over a 40 day period, Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once and was taken up from their sight, giving this final commission,

"Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

(See the Easter Enigma by John Wenham for a discussion and defense of this scenario).

Will the real Muhammad please stand up?

2011-03-30T08:29:00.001-07:00

Two interesting articles on Muhammad: "Muslim Mindset, The hatred is Muhammad himself" and "Time to unmask Muhammad."

For those who will be inclined to view these articles as anti-Muslim hate speech, I would strongly recommend reading The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. This is the very earliest biography of Muhammad and was written by a devout Muslim. I've read it. It is not the easiest read, but it is very enlightening! You will then be in a position to determine for yourself what Muhammad was like.

If you don't have time to wade through all 690 pages of Ibn Ishaq (not counting notes and index), I would suggest an outstanding summary of Ibn Ishaq called, Muhammad and the Unbelievers (only 167 pages).

If you don't have time to read 167 pages, you could read an even shorter (much shorter) summary of Ibn Ishaq in my "Jesus, Muhammad and Fundamentalism" (only 47 pages).

How I lost 100 pounds

2011-02-22T12:36:00.000-08:00

How I lost 100 pounds--

without strenuous exercise, surgery, dietary supplements, expensive pre-packaged diets, or giving up junk food!

Introduction

As I lay in the emergency room writhing in agony the nurse asked, “On a scale of one to ten, how bad would you rate the pain?” “Let’s put it this way” I responded, “If I owned a gun I would not be ready to use it yet, but I would be comforted just knowing it was there.”

She did not think my lame attempt at humor was funny.

I’ve had back pain before but never anything like this! There were some precipitating events that led up to my emergency room visit, of course, but one of the underlying factors was the fact that at only five feet ten inches tall, I weighed 318 pounds!

This was the final straw. I simply had to lose weight. But like most other overweight people, I had tried all kinds of diets and they never worked. In my case I would always loose an encouraging amount of weight at first and then hit a plateau. After a few weeks on the plateau I would decide, “What’s the point of missing out on the food I love when I’m not losing weight anyway?” and that would be the end of the diet.

But clearly I needed to do something. That’s when I discovered that there are free online websites that make calorie counting easy.

It’s all about calories!

Most overweight Christians are painfully aware of what the Bible says about gluttony. For example, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor…” (Prov. 23:20-21a, NIV). Or, “Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach…” (Phil. 3:19, NIV). One of the roadblocks to my weight loss, however, was that I was convinced that I was not one of those people. I really didn’t think I ate all that much.

What I didn’t realize was that weight loss is not just about the quantity of food we eat, but about how many calories the food contains. I discovered that the amount of calories a food contains is not always very intuitive.

For example, I never would have dreamed that a single “healthy” taco salad at Taco Bell can contain as many calories as three delicious jelly-filled Dunkin Donuts! I didn’t realize that I could stuff myself with four servings of Culvers’ mashed potatoes and gravy (which I love) for about the same amount of calories as a single Big Mac. It’s not just about quantity. It’s about calories. Understanding this fact, allowed me to eat enough food so that I did not go hungry, while staying within what I soon called, my “budget.”

The Budget

To make calorie counting easier, I signed in to CalorieCount.com (later changing to LiveStrong.com) and selected a goal of 230 pounds. This was not an ideal weight, of course, but I thought it was a realistic target. The website asked about the level of my physical activity and I selected the lowest level. I admit it, I was a couch potato (mmm, potatoes!).

According to the website, if I ate 2,400 calories per day I should achieve my goal in about 18 months. I knew, of course, that I could lose more weight—and lose it faster—by lowering my calorie goal, but I wanted a calorie total I could live with permanently. I figured that there was little point in struggling to lose weight if I was just going to gain it back again anyway.

Once I signed up, it was just a matter of keeping track of my calories for the day. Both CalorieCount.com and Livestrong.com make that easy with extensive databases of foods and restaurants which include calorie and nutrition information. All I had to do was type the name of the food and/or restaurant in the search box, fill in the quantity, and click to add it to my list for the day. The websites automatically tally up the calories and other nutritional information. Since I am on the computer every day anyway, searching for foods and recording calories turned out to be easy and even fun.

I have come to call this weight lost program my “budget” rather than my diet. To me, diet implied something I discarded after I reached my goal. I knew if I discarded this, I would immediately begin to gain weight again.

It’s about choices

Next to losing weight, the main goal of my “budget” is to make the right food choices to ensure that I do not get hungry and do not run out of calories before the day is over. After awhile, I discovered that this was relatively easy to do.

It’s all about choices, but contrary to popular opinion it is not always about healthy choices. For example, I significantly cut down on the amount of healthy milk and orange juice I consumed and replaced them with Crystal Light and Diet Coke. Diet Coke may not be the most healthy choice, but for me it cut hundreds of calories out of my daily calorie budget.

In fact, one of the great features of this “budget” is that I can eat just about anything I want. I did not have to cut out the sweets or fast food which I love. I just have to “budget” for them. So for example, I will sometimes cut down on the amount of food I eat during the day just so I have enough calories left over at the end of the day to enjoy cookies or ice cream! This may not be the most healthy choice but being able to enjoy the delicious foods I love is one of the things that has kept me on this “budget” for so long. Besides, when it comes to being unhealthy, weighing 318 pounds at my height has to be near the top of the list.

Paradoxically, although my budget has allowed me to make some less than healthy food choices, overall, I am actually eating more healthy now than I ever ate before! This is because, first, the budget has required me to limit my overall intake of sweets, which is certainly healthier. Second, in order to make my calories stretch for the day, I tend to chose lower calorie (and more healthy) foods like turkey or grilled chicken rather than high fat, high cholesterol (albeit delicious) cheeseburgers or fried chicken. Or, as another example, since I love mashed potatoes, I order Culver’s mashed potatoes and gravy instead of fries. This is not only a more healthy option, but a more filling and lower calorie option as well.

Don’t get me wrong. I still enjoy my cheeseburgers and fried chicken. I just have to budget for them. The point is that while I still eat some junk food, overall I am making more healthy choices than before I was on my budget.

Exercise and going over budget

So what happens when I go over my budget? Simple. I never go over budget on purpose. I have discarded too many diets by thinking, “Well, I’ve blown it again. What’s the use?!” But on those rare occasions when I have accidentally gone over, I compensate by cutting back on calories the following day.

Another strategy for some might be to make up for the added calories by exercise. Both CalorieCount.Com and Livestrong.Com give the option of factoring in exercise. The more I exercise the more calories I’m allowed to consume. I decided against this option, however, because my goal was to lose weight not to exercise so I could eat more.

Speaking of exercise, at first my new “budget” was almost entirely about counting calories. I was, after all, in physical therapy for back pain and even the required walking around the block was uncomfortable. When the back pain went away, however, I began walking more and more. While walking, I often pass the time by listening to an ipod or wrist-radio, talking on my cell phone or praying. This makes walking even more enjoyable.

Once my back was healed, I even began using weights. Nothing serious, mind you. All I have is a cheap incline bench and a couple of dumbbells. Muscle tone helps increase metabolism which helps lose weight!

At 318 pounds, exercise was drudgery but I discovered a happy--rather than vicious--cycle. The more weight I lost, the more I enjoyed the exercise. I discovered, however, while exercise is essential to good health, it did very little to help me lose weight. Losing weight was all about calories.

Other strategies

One of the websites suggested that I should eat all of my allotted calories for the day. If I consistently come in under my target for the day, it may cause me to start becoming hungry which would make it harder to stay on the budget. I love this rule because if I get to the end of my day and have calories left over, I can eat the rest of my calories just for the sheer pleasure of eating— and do so entirely guilt-free! This was one of those features that helped me stay on the budget for so long.

Finally, I mentioned earlier how those pesky plateaus have been the downfall of many of my previous diets. I found a simple solution. I only weigh myself once a month. This turned out to be great strategy! There were times—especially as I got closer to my goal—that my weight loss for the month would be minimal, but I almost always lost something each month and that was enough to keep me going. Even if I only lost a couple pounds for the entire month, I would look at a pound of hamburger in the freezer to remind myself that losing two pounds is no small accomplishment.

Conclusion

I’ve now been on my “budget” for over two years and I have exceeded my initial goal of 230 pounds. In fact, after I got down to 230 I was able to comfortably lower my calorie limit to 2,000 and am now down to 210 pounds and still dropping. I feel better, look better, and have much fewer back problems. In fact, I think I’ll celebrate by having some cake and ice cream—but only if it fits within my budget.

The wrath of God

2011-02-16T19:39:00.001-08:00

I've been reading Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan. In this book he quotes "Yale theologian Miroslav Volf" who "was born in Croatia and lived though the nightmare years of ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia that included the destruction of churches, the raping of women and the murdering of innocents." Volf writes,

I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).

"Is God a Moral Monster"

2011-01-30T16:01:00.000-08:00

I've been reading Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan. Overall a good book so far, but I'm wondering if some of his points are a bit wrong-headed.

I'm thinking specifically of his dealing with ceremonial purity laws in the Old Testament. Copan is reacting to what one atheist called, "The Bible's ubiquitous wierdness." Copan spends considerable space explaining why he thinks these purity laws were given and what the symbolism was behind these laws.

For example, Copan suggests that "Genesis 1 divides animals into three spheres: animals that walk on the land, animals that swim in the water, animals that fly in the air." He says that "animals that 'transgressed' boundaries or overlapped spheres were to be avoided as unclean." So eels or shellfish are unclean because they don't have scales or fins (80).

But eels and shellfish don't walk on land or fly in the air. Saying that they've "crossed boundaries" simply because they lack scales or fins seems to be a stretch.

Copan points out that according to Old Testament law, a "clean" land animal must be a "cud chewer" and have split hooves (80).

True, but just because a land animal does not chew the cud or have split hooves, does not mean they have "crossed boundaries." They are still land animals. They don't swim in the sea or fly in the air.

Copan writes "swarming and slithering animals in any sphere (eels, snakes, flying insects) were reminiscent of the fall in Genesis 3 and of the cursed slithering serpent" (81).

I might be able to see Copan's point in the case of the slithering animals, but applying it to flying insects seems to be a stretch.

I agree with Copan that the purity laws in the Old Testament were intended to symbolize the importance of holiness or "set-apartness." God's chosen people were to have lifestyles that were markedly set apart from the degrading, immoral, and idolatrous lifestyles of their national neighbors and the all-pervasive nature of the purity laws were intended as tangible, daily illustrations of that fact.

Although many of Copan's explanations are quite good, for example, he did a good job debunking the theory that some animals were said to be unclean for health reasons (79-80), when Copan feels it necessary to explain why some things were declared to be ceremonially clean and other things were not, I think he has weakened his argument by offering explanations that seem to be scholarly conjectures at best. The fact is that the Bible itself doesn't explain why some things are said to be clean and others unclean.

If Copan's point is only that there may be valid reasons behind laws that may seem arbitrary and "weird" to us, I agree, but his argument has been weakened by not making that point explicitly.

I think I would approach the topic from a different angel.What if there is no reason why some things are declared clean and others are declared unclean? If God wanted to set before His people a symbolic but tangible reminder of how important holiness or "set-apartness" was to Him, why should we think that there must be a reason for why some things are "clean" and other things are not?

For example, maybe there was nothing fundamentally holy about a cow or fundamentally immoral about a pig? (From a Christian perspective, this is supported in the New Testament by the fact that unclean foods are declared clean). The point was only to provide a daily, tangible reminder that separateness (holiness) was important to the God of Israel. God could just as well have said, you may eat green things which are "clean" but you must avoid red things (like red peppers or apples) which are unclean. My guess is that if God had said to avoid red apples someone would probably have conjectured that this was because it was reminiscent of the fruit that caused the fall of Adam and Eve!

My point is that the reason for clean and unclean animals did not lie so much in the animal itself, but in the illustration. The reason was to provide a daily tangible reminder of the importance holiness--something about which modern atheists (and many Christians, for that matter) seem to be clueless.

Finally, regarding what one atheist called, "The Bible's ubiquitous weirdness" I would answer that this smacks of ethnocentrism or cultural snobbery. Some condemn the "weirdness" of the Bible because it looks strange to them from the perspective of their own 21st century, Eurocentric culture. Although they may be very tolerant of all other cultures and are often blind to the weirdness of our own culture, they are very selectively intolerant of ancient Jewish culture.

I'm only up to chapter eight but so far the book has been excellent, notwithstanding my nit-picky criticisms.

Dallas Willard, Richard Foster and Spiritual Disciplines

2011-01-08T06:27:00.000-08:00

For a fascinating and insightful critique of Dallas Willard, Richard Foster and the whole Spiritual Formation movement, check out "The Dangers of Spiritual Formation and Spiritual Disciplines" by Bob DeWaay.