By the mid-20th Century Relativity offered a good explanation of the cosmos. For extremely small things quantum mechanics was the operational theory. The two theories were incompatible but both were supported by experimental evidence. Physicists set about developing a unified theory. Some came up with "loop quantum gravity" others with "string theory." String theory was more popular but eventually ran into road blocks until around 1990, give or take, when a guy named Witten added new wrinkles to the mathematics, and string theory became M theory or brane theory. None of this can be tested by experiment.

Excitement about discovery of the Higgs boson was due to the idea that the Higgs is a subatomic particle imparting mass to larger subatomic particles of which it is a part. In addition the Higgs was one of a group of particles predicted by a popular (among physicists) but unproven theory about the zoo of subatomic particles discovered by atom-smashing experimental machines. The theory predicted other particles in addition to the Higgs, but unfortunately those other particles have not been found.

The subatomic research was impressive but in the meantime astronomical observations made life much more complicated. Dark matter was discovered, or rather its existence was surmised; we can't see it. It's existence was inferred from the extra gravity needed to hold galaxies together. Dark energy was also discovered, or inferred, or surmised. Something is pushing the universe from within, making it expand faster and faster. The stuff we can observe makes up about 7% of the universe. Dark matter makes up about 23%. Dark energy makes up around 70%.

I don't know how the unified theories account for dark matter or dark energy.

Meanwhile more theories and experiments indicate space can only be so small, specifically it cannot be any smaller then Planck length. Planck length is about 1 meter to the -35 power. There is nothing smaller. I think I read that the strings in string theory are about Planck length.

That leads to some puzzling questions about what else we may be missing. A man is under 2 meters tall. If you downsize from a man by 10 to the minus 10 (one ten billionth) you get to the size of an atom. An atom is mostly space. The nucleus is one ten thousandth the size of the whole atom, 10 to the minus 14 meters. A proton or neutron is an order of magnitude smaller, 10 to the minus 15 meters. An electron is one thousandth the size of a proton, 10 to the minus 18 meters. And a quark is the size of an electron or even smaller, 10 to the minus 19 meters.

If a proton or neutron is made up of three quarks, there must be a lot of emptiness inside because a proton is ten thousand times as big as a quark. I guess that shows how little I understand.

Here's where I really stumble. Think about that electron at 10 to the minus 18 meters. Planck space is 10 to the minus 35 meters. That is 17 orders of magnitude difference, about the difference from a man to an electron, one trillionth of a hundred billionth smaller. There is an enormous jump from Planck distance (the realm of strings) to the size of quarks and electrons. Recall, for a moment, all the discoveries we've made to move from what is visible down to the realm of atoms and electrons. Then imagine repeating all that progress and discovery to move down to the extremely small dimension of Planck length. In all that gap how much is there that we don't know about?

1. Environmental protection vs. Support for extraction of mineral resources
2. Participatory democracy vs. Electoral democracy
3. Reproductive rights vs. Compulsory morality
4. Heterodox economics vs. Classical economics
5. Growth through export vs. Internal growth
6. Tax the rich vs. Low tax burden on the wealthy
7. Anti-discrimination vs. Entrenched elites

First of all, what does the author mean? Participatory democracy as distinct from electoral democracy may evoke the image of a New England town meeting where people vote on community issues. It could also relate to what the French call "subsidiarization" where decisions are made at a low level by people who will be most directly affected. But I don't think that's what he's talking about. I believe he supports decisions by direct action of masses of people in one or another special interest group favored by the left, such as peasants or workers, in demonstrations or large public meetings, forcing the government to give them what they want without anyone, voters or elected representatives, casing any ballots.

Heterodox economics can mean any non-traditional economics such as marxism, socialism, or special theories that benefit minorities or women.

Reproductive rights evidently means pro-abortion, pro-birth control, no fault divorce, and equal rights for homosexuals.

Many of these issues are specifically or primarily Latin American. Issue 1, Extraction of minerals, is a small part of the environmental debate in the US but very important in Peru. In the US both left and right support a clean environment; the left sees environmental protection as an emotional and moral issue, or about hard-to-quantify small benefits to large groups, while the right sees environmental protection as an issue of stewardship where actions must be evaluated for their concrete benefits and cost-effectiveness.

Issue 3, Reproductive rights, arouses the passions of segments of the US electorate, such as religious conservatives, feminists, and homosexuals, but most Americans are tolerant and agree with Bill Clinton that, while they won't deny a woman the right to an abortion, they would like to see fewer of them. Such issues are much more vital in Latin America, for example Chile has never allowed divorce under virtually any circumstances.

Issue 2, participatory democracy sounds good but the way leftists want to practice it would almost certainly do more harm than good.

Issue 7 (anti-discrimination) is a serious matter in Latin America because elites are deeply entrenched. The US does a good job of not discriminating; in fact the biggest problem with discrimination in the US is probably "affirmative action." As Chief Justice Roberts has said, "the best way to end race discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Three of the seven issues are economic. For American libertarians and most conservatives, we don't disagree with the left so much as we have an utterly different perspective. For example Issue 4, heterodox vs. traditional economics, is one where we Americans do not think a person has the option of choosing which type of economics they believe. Economics is something that exists independent of political preferences. It is a phenomenon of nature and human behavior. We need to study to discern its laws, and then adjust our conduct to most effectively operate within those laws. You may not like the law of gravity but you cannot reject it. So it is with supply and demand. The idea of choosing some form of economics which does not relate to the real world is dumb.

issue 5, growth through export, looks like a special Latin America topic. It may mean low tariffs and free trade as opposed to high tariffs protecting the businesses of local elites. If so, the Latin left is the different from the US left. In the US, the leftist rank and file is likely to support protectionism. Libertarians are for free trade.

Issue 6, tax the rich, is another of those issues that look different in Latin American than in the US. In Latin America there are big problems with entrenched elites and with corruption and special deals where the government lets powerful elitists avoid tax burdens. In the US almost all Americans are in favor of the graduated income tax. Debate arises when taxes are imposed not to raise revenue but for some unrelated social purpose or as a symbolic gesture, or when taxes reach a level where they discourage economic activity and hold back job creation.

The Latin American context gives us a fresh perspective to look at political differences.

Two points are important. Even though the crisis has become acute under President Obama, it has been building for decades because deficit spending and unpaid-for increases in spending have been going on all our lives. Second, the country's political system is incapable of solving the problem. Speeches, elections, changes of government, special commissions, "super committees"... we've tried most everything to address the problem and everything has failed.

The problem is so severe that it can wreck our country, yet America's politicians cannot solve it. We need a Constitutional amendment to do what politicians cannot. More accurately, we need to amend the process and procedures affecting federal spending so that the system will work, even in the face of partisan gridlock, cynical political self-interest, and and a vast number of special interests clamoring for pay-offs.

The most direct approach is a balanced budget amendment. I would be happy to see such an amendment adopted but I don't think it's the optimal solution. It puts a lid on a dysfunctional, broken process but does almost nothing to fix the process. If such a "lid" could ever be adopted as an amendment, who knows if it could contain all the pressure?

The challenge is to make democracy work. Spending is the Achilles heel of democracy. Special steps are needed to address it. I think it will take a Constitutional amendment, but the amendment should address the budget process and voter eligibility.

I. The Budget Process

Congress needs to address issues in the right sequence. The first issue is, how large should the federal budget be? What proportion of the gross domestic product should the federal government allocate to itself? We need to agree on a number. This will tell us how much tax revenue needs to be raised and guide Congress in prioritizing spending.

Economist Richard Rahn has pointed out there is an inverse relationship between the level of government spending and economic growth. He did not quantify this economic principle and the inverse relationship would differ depending on whether the spending is for needed infrastructure or for transfer payments. Nevertheless, the overall level of spending is a vital and basic issue. Addressing it first would enable the debate between fiscal conservatives, who believe less government would be good for the country, and progressives, who believe more government would be good for the country, to be focused and to take place in a proper context.

How to make sure the issue is addressed first? Make it first in time. Eight months before the beginning of the new budget year Congress and the President must agree on the size of the budget. If they do not meet the deadline - and the amendment must have teeth or it will be ignored - the budget will be automatically set at 18% of gdp. Per the Office of Management and Budget, federal tax receipts have been fairly steady at 18% since the end of World War II, through a variety of tax regimes. If we want a balanced budget, spending needs to match revenue, and OMB tells us what revenue is likely to be.

The second issue must be addressed four months before the start of the new budget year. This issue relies on a distinction between government spending which benefits the society in the aggregate and spending which benefits individuals and organizations with individual needs. In the former category would be national defense, the judicial system, the federal reserve system, interest on the national debt, organizations to protect public health, organizations that regulate economic activity, and so on. In the latter category would be all income transfers, subsidies, payments for individual services like health care, pensions, loans, loan guarantees, "investments" in businesses or individuals, foreign aid... essentially any federal government payment or assistance to another entity for anything other than goods and services delivered.

There can be many partisan battles in the first category of spending to benefit society in the aggregate. These battles and debates should take place and decisions should be made about how to fund necessary government operations before Congress starts talking about how much money to give to individuals and organizations outside the government.

Of course gridlock and failure are possible. If Congress and the President do not agree by the deadline of 4 months prior to the start of the budget year, a default solution is automatically imposed. Interest on the national debt is what it is, and must be paid. Each government department shall be examined to identify the portion of expenditures which are for actual government operations and the portion for transfer of funds or benefits to persons or organizations outside government (including administration of such benefits). For example the Department of Agriculture has some activities which regulate and improve agriculture but it also has the food stamp program. Ongoing work for agriculture would be considered for continued funding in the second stage, and the food stamp program (including its costs of administration) would be addressed in the next stage of budget discussions.

After the spending by each department is separated into the two categories, the budget amount in the current year for spending on actual government operations would equal the budget number for that department in the upcoming budget year. That number (in nominal dollars) would not, repeat not be increased for inflation, increased workload, or any other reason.

Crisis do occur. If Congress declares war, spending specifically on the war would not be capped. If the President declares and Congress agrees that a national disaster has occurred (e.g. a major hurricane), spending specifically on the emergency would not be capped.

The third and final stage is how much money and benefits the government is going to transfer to others. The politicians will have to do something which is at the very core of their job description but which they are loath to do: say no to people clamoring for government money. It is essential that this stage take place a decent interval of time after the other two stages are decided. The partisan fighting will be brutal. Many worthy, needy people will lose out to politically more organized interest groups. For the health of the economy and the country, politicians must be forced to prioritize.

The amount of money available for this third category is obviously the figure determined in stage 1 minus the funds budgeted in stage 2. There is a risk Congress and the President will not agree to stay within this net amount. If they fail a default result must occur automatically: veterans benefits will be paid first, then social security retirement payments second, federal retirement third, medicare fourth, medical benefits to active and retired federal employees fifth, and the food stamp program sixth. If there is money available after funding those programs Congress and the President must agree on allocating such funds on remaining programs but they must not exceed the spending cap. If they cannot agree, simply stop the remaining programs and use whatever monies are left to pay down the national debt.

The Constitutional amendment does not preclude reform of various programs. For example social security could be privatized and taken outside the budget process. Until that happens the proscriptions of the amendment must be followed.

Perhaps 8 months and 4 months are not the right deadlines. Details of the amendment must be structured to be consistent with the actual budget process, but these three stages separated in time are essential.

II. Voter Eligibility

We have seen President Bush bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq the fate of democracy is problematical. In Afghanistan it has failed. President Obama has tried to become a champion of the "Arab Spring" and to foster democracy throughout the Middle East. The Arabs seem to be ignoring him and fascist Islamists seem to be about to take over a number of countries, the most important of which is Egypt.

Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." Democracy is a wonderful thing but we need to be aware of its shortcomings and need to put in a lot of effort so that we have a democratic system that actually works. Our founders did that. They put many checks and balances in the system, and tried hard to insure that fiscal responsibility, freedom, and the rights of the minority and of individuals would be protected.

After more than two centuries many protections have been eroded. We need a renewed effort to make democracy work. In the fiscal area, can anyone question it is not working now? The place to start is with the voters. We need responsible voters who are likely to focus on the long term health of the economy and the needs of the nation as a whole, rather than the interests of any interest group.

Democracy has been described as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Without constraints democracy becomes an exercise in taking advantage of whoever lacks political power. In America today only about half the people pay income tax, and about half the people receive some kind of money, service or support from the government. There are an enormous number of votes likely to favor more spending and more transfer payments. As long as this continues fiscal responsibility is impossible.

The House of Representatives is where all tax and spending bills originate. Only people who pay more to the government in taxes than they receive in benefits should be allowed to vote for candidates for the House of Representatives. All payments and the value of all services provided by the government to an individual would be compared with taxes they paid. If the amount of taxes paid exceeds money and benefits received, they are eligible to vote. The kinds of payments and services counted would include salaries, retirement benefits, unemployment payments, the value of medical care, food stamps, wages specifically on government contract work, and the like. However social security payments would not be included because social security checks are a repayment of money already taken away from the taxpayer.

I believe people serving in the military are a special case. We cannot ask someone to risk their life for the country then limit their right to vote. Members of the military should be able to vote for members of the House of Representatives.

With this reform every Congressman and woman will know they answer to voters who are not motivated simply to take advantage of the system or raid the treasury, but to voters who care about fiscal responsibility in government because ultimately they pay the bills. That will bring about a sea change in the attitudes of Congressmen on taxes and spending.

III. Solving Part of the Problem

The Constitutional amendments proposed above will balance the budget. They will do so in a manner that allows for extensive debate on the issues, and it will require politicians to do what they should be doing in the first place, that is prioritizing spending and saying "no" to many interest groups. It is not a solution to all our fiscal problems, especially the obscenely high national debt, but it would be a tremendous first step.

I. Luke Connects the Old Testament and the New

Like many big issues in the Bible, the place to start is Genesis. That's where the author of Luke-Acts, the gospel of Luke and The of Acts of the Apostles, started. It will take me some paragraphs to explain how Luke relates Acts to Genesis.

A. Interrelated literary themes

It seems that the stories in the early part of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the great flood and so forth, were transmitted orally from generation to generation long before they were written down. When they were written down they were arranged in a cohesive way by an editor who arranged them purposefully. I would say the stories and the editor were inspired by God.

Incidentally in seminary they use a more fancy word than editor, they call him a redactor.

I take note of four major stories in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the flood, and the tower of Babel. These stories follow a pattern and themes recur, although the redactor did not force the stories to repeat each sub-theme in lock step.

All the sub-themes are explicit in the story of Adam and Eve. They are warned what not to do and the consequences of disobedience, "...of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die" (Genesis 2:17). Adam and Eve eat the fruit, disobeying God. Grace enters in because they do not die immediately, but there are serious consequences. They are sent out of the garden (3:23) and become mortal facing eventual death (3:19). The woman will experience pain in childbirth and her husband will rule over her (3:16). The man will only be able to eat if he works hard, "by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread" (3:19).

An interesting detail about God's grace is how it relates to the sin; because they ate of the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve realize they are naked. God gives them clothes (3:10-11 & 21).

The passage offers a further insight into the problem of disobedience. By eating the fruit Adam and Eve know of good and evil which makes them somewhat like God, and now if they go further and eat of the tree of life they will live forever and be even more like God (3:22). This theme of trying to be like God rather than obey God will recur.

In the story of Cain and Abel it is clear what must not be done; don't kill and in particular don't kill your brother. God even takes the step of cautioning Cain against this, but nevertheless Cain commits premeditated murder (4:6-8). The story assumes that the listener already knows the punishment for murder is death. After this crime anyone would be justified in killing Cain. God gives punishment but also grace; Cain will have great difficulty raising food and he will be a fugitive and a wanderer, but God marks him so that no one will kill him (4:11-15).

The mark of Cain has that double-edged significance; it warns people not to kill Cain but it also brands him as a murderer for all to see. The grace and the judgment are interrelated.

The story of Noah and the flood starts with mankind's wickedness. In chapter 4, the Cain and Abel chapter, a man is described who brags about being even more violent than Cain (4:23-24). Almost all of humanity is so bad God regrets having made them and resolves to "blot them out from the earth" (6:5-7). Noah finds favor, and is instructed to build the ark. Then the rains come and only Noah and his family are saved from the flood.

Wiping out all humanity except one family is pretty drastic. After that God's grace abounds, God recognizes "the human heart is evil" but nevertheless resolves never to curse the ground and never to destroy every living creature again (8:21). Furthermore God gives Noah a sign of this commitment not to ever destroy life again, God gives the rainbow. The clouds and the deluge are what terrified and destroyed mankind, but now routinely following a storm God provides a beautiful sign of covenant and grace.

In the tower of Babel story "the whole earth" has one language. People come together, settle on a wide plain, and decide to build a city and a tower "with its top in the heavens." Thus they will "make a name for themselves" and not be scattered. See Genesis 11:1-4. God is concerned; the city and tower may be only the beginning, "nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible to them" (11:6). Evidently the problem is the people aggrandizing themselves, aspiring to be like God, but acting on their own initiative without any deference to God's wishes. God puts an end to it by confusing their language so they cannot understand one another and scattering them throughout the earth (11:7-9). The Babel story is told without a mention of God's grace at the end.

At this point the redactor introduces Abram (soon to be renamed Abraham), starting with genealogy. The redactor has set up this introduction by showing that, when Abram enters the story, all humanity is scattered, divided by language, and separated from God. Then God calls Abram and tells him, "...in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (12:3).

In each of the three previous stories ultimately God has brought grace and blessing, to one degree or another. The tower of Babel story is incomplete; humanity has been punished for its temerity by being divided, scattered and confused. But the blessing has not yet come. The redactor is saying grace will come through Abraham. The redactor has made the first 11 chapters of Genesis an introduction to the rest of Jewish scripture. We now have a motivation to read the rest of the story, the story of Abraham and his descendants, but the redactor does not even hint at the way in which God's gift of grace will come.

Based on the pattern in Genesis 1 - 11, God's grace will be related to the origin of the problem. We might reasonably expect to find certain elements when the story is told of how grace comes to correct the tragedy of Babel. Perhaps we will find a city under God, the coming together of people from every nation, people speaking and others understanding them overcoming the variety of native languages, and people extolling God rather than seeking to aggrandize themselves.

Now go to Act chapter 2. The action takes place in the holy city of Jerusalem, which is situated not on a plain but on a small mountain. At its highest elevation rather than a tower there is the Temple, where God has chosen to dwell. The action takes place about 50 days after Jesus ascended to heaven, during Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks, which is one of three pilgrimage festivals on the Jewish calendar. It is a time when Jews from all over the world come to Jerusalem to worship. Luke tells us, "Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem" (Acts 2:5). Presumably many were living temporarily, as part of their pilgrimage.

Suddenly a sound like a violent rush of wind comes and fills the place where Jesus' followers are assembled. Fire appears and tongues of fire rest on each Christ-follower. The followers "were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability" (2:2-4). The visitors to the city were amazed because they heard the followers speaking in their own native languages, rather than the language of Judea. Luke lists by way of example a dozen regions from which foreign Jews were visiting, and quotes people in this crowd, "in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power" (2:6-12).

For those who know scripture and look to scripture to discern God's actions and intentions, Acts chapter 2 shows that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is the act of grace that follows humanity's confusion, disunity, and separation from God conveyed in the tower of Babel story. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the way in which God, through Abraham (as promised in Genesis 12) and Abraham's descendants, blesses all humanity. In chapter 2 the Holy Spirit comes to Jews but the blessing will spread to all humanity. The book of Acts is about the spread of the church not just to Jews but to Gentiles as well.

We need to consider and take to heart what the author of Luke / Acts is telling us. If you talked to believing Christians and pointed out the promise in Genesis 12:3, then asked how God planned to bless humanity through the descendants of Abraham, most would say God would bless us by sending Jesus to die on the cross and take away our sins. However important the crucifixion may be, the message here is that God's long-planned, supreme act of blessing is the pouring out of His Spirit.

B. Peter's sermon

This coming of the Spirit creates a lot of attention so the Apostle Peter, a leader of the (very) early church promptly stands and gives his first sermon. He makes major points about the outpouring of the Spirit and about Jesus. In Acts 2:17-21 he quotes the Old Testament prophet Joel (Joel 2 :28-32) to the effect that this pouring out of the Spirit was predicted long in advance and that it is a sign of the "last days". The idea is that God is about to come and judge the earth, but "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Indeed the outpouring of the Spirit was a major step in God's plan, moving toward the day of judgment. Instead of being present on earth primarily in the temple and dealing primarily with Jews, God now would dwell by His Spirit in people who welcome Him, and would reach out to all humanity. From Peter's limited perspective judgment day was just around the corner. In fact outreach to all of humanity was going to take some time.

Peter devotes the balance of the sermon, the majority of his sermon, to Jesus. First he talks of the crucifixion and resurrection, quoting Psalms 16:8-11 and making the point that Jesus' resurrection was foretold. Jesus lives and is now at the right hand of God, God has made him Lord and Messiah (2:33-36). So now Jesus rules from heaven as God's agent. Furthermore Jesus received the Holy Spirit from God and now Jesus (rather than God) is the one pouring out the Holy Spirit on his followers (2:33).

II. Jesus receives the Spirit

As Peter points out, Jesus first received the Holy Spirit and then poured it out. The story of Jesus receiving the Spirit is told in each of the four gospels (Matt 3:1-17, Mark 1:1-11, Luke 3:1-22, and John 1:19-34). Each narrative includes a description of the ministry of John the Baptist.

A. John the Baptist's message

John was a forerunner of the messiah, warning people the messiah was coming, and helping them prepare. What John and the people expected, looking forward into the future, was quite different from what we see, looking into the past. Four different sets of words and phrases in Matthew's account indicate what John and his audience expected. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (3:2) tells that people better change their ways and stop sinning because something major was about to happen. To the Pharisees he shouts, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (3:7). John expected wrath to come very soon, and sinners were going to get it. "Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10). If your life does not result in what is good, what is pleasing to God, you will get thrown into the fire! Then another metaphor, "he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire" (3:12). John warns of more hellfire for those found wanting.

Exactly how was this vengeance going to be loosed on wrongdoers? God's agent, an extremely powerful figure, was coming and, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16). Mark, the more terse gospel, simply says, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (1:8). This doesn't sound like good news. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit in this context seems to mean the wrath of God would be visited on you for your sins, a very scary prospect. John the Baptist was preparing people, helping them "get right with God" so they would not be consumed by God's anger.

How surprising then that the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus like a dove (Matt 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32). Furthermore we today know, from the perspective of more than 20 centuries, that the day of wrath has not yet come.

B. Jewish theology about the messiah

First Century Jewish theology was diverse, but John the Baptist seems to be a good example of one particular stream. He expected God to intervene in history very soon, through a powerful agent (the messiah), to destroy God's enemies and set things right. In several seminary classes this type of theology was called Jewish apocalypticism, meaning Jewish expectations of the end times.

The theology had a strong political dimension. Jews worshiped the true God, the creator, so by rights Jews should rule the earth and Jerusalem should be the capital and center of the world. Instead Israel had been destroyed by Assyria, Judah conquered by Babylon, and when Jerusalem was restored it was soon conquered by Greeks and then Rome. That was not a proper history for God's chosen people. Surely God would come with power and set things right.

By studying a number of Old Testament passages, Jews expected a messiah to come. Perhaps he would be in human form but would actually come down from heaven (per Daniel), or he would be a descendant of King David. In any event he would be a conqueror and avenger, leading Israel to triumph.

The coming of the messiah was inextricably linked with judgment day, a point in time when people and perhaps even nations would be judged on whether or not they had honored God and done God's will. For the faithful there would be blessings, for the ungodly, punishment.

Messiah - God's agent for His intervention in history - means "anointed one" in Hebrew [or it's a close English attempt to pronounce the word]. In the Old Testament people were anointed with oil designating them as chosen for great undertakings on God's behalf. The prophet Samuel anointed Saul to be king of Israel (1 Sam 10:1), and after Saul lost favor with God, Samuel anointed David to be king (1 Sam 16:1-13). The messiah would be a person designated and empowered by God for the great undertaking of bringing justice for the good and wrath to evildoers.

While many, including some of Jesus' disciples, were focused on the political dimension of Jewish apocalypticism, John the Baptist was focused on the moral or ethical. For the politically-oriented it was Israel against the gentile nations. For John it was a matter of whether an individual was sufficiently submissive to God to avoid being consumed when the day of judgment came.

John's other insight, actually inspiration, was to say the Holy Spirit would be the instrument by which the messiah successfully accomplished his great intervention in history ("he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire").

C. The Spirit comes to Jesus

Jesus is baptized and as he is coming up out of the water the Spirit of God descends like a dove and alights on him (Matt 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 21-22, John 1:32-34). At that moment a voice from heaven, in other words God, speaks saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."

Messiah means "anointed one". In the Old Testament people were anointed with oil, but there is no passage about Jesus being anointed with oil. There is no other ceremony in which Jesus is commissioned for great work. The Holy Spirit coming down gently on Jesus is his anointing, the commissioning of Jesus as God's agent for the great work prophesied throughout the Old Testament. After the Spirit comes upon Jesus his ministry begins. Jesus is tested in the wilderness, then Jesus calls disciples, and starts preaching, proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

Luke gives interesting details. After temptation, Luke describes Jesus, "filled with the power of the Spirit ... he began to teach" (4:14-15). The first words of teaching Luke quotes are, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me..." (4:18). The anointing of the Spirit identifies Jesus as the messiah and commissions him for his great ministry.

In the Book of Acts the apostle Peter explains Christianity to new believers, the first gentiles to come to the faith. Peter tells them "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38). It seems to have been commonly understood in the early church that Jesus was the messiah, the "anointed one," because he was anointed with the Holy Spirit, and that imbued Jesus with great power.

D. Reflections on terminology

Various words are used to describe the coming of the Spirit. In Acts 2 first we have "tongues of fire" which "rested on" each believer (2:3). This appears to be a literal fulfillment of John's prophecy about being baptized with fire, but not a fulfillment of the deeper intent which will come in relation to judgment day. "Resting on" is gentle, and is on the outside of a person. The next verse says, "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit..." (2:4). Individuals were filled up, perhaps like water in a glass. Then there are three verses which use the phrase "pour out" (2:17,18,32) which describe a collective action of distributing the Spirit to many people.

The four gospels have contrasting language for what the Spirit means to sinners versus when it descends like a dove and alights on Jesus. The coming of the Spirit can bring hellfire or great gentleness. Baptism, when the word is used by John the Baptist, is of course an analogy to the water baptism he was practicing and evokes the imagery of being completely inundated, overwhelmed by or submerged by the Spirit. When John speaks about coming judgment it has a negative connotation. Later in the New Testament we'll see baptism of the Holy Spirit used in a descriptive or positive sense.

This event or process or circumstance of having the Holy Spirit filling us, poured out upon us, resting on us - whichever terms you choose - is unique. Describing something unique is always a challenge. Every word or phrase captures some but not all of the experience. I'll continue to be alert to how the experience or phenomenon is described.

A second thing to reflect on is the evident confusion of John the Baptist and the disciples about God's timing. These New Testament figures were all ethnically Jewish and had the same expectation as other Jews, namely that the coming of the messiah would bring the end times and judgment on evildoers. With hindsight the church has come to the view that the messiah, Jesus, will come twice, first to inaugurate his kingdom, begin the outreach to gentiles, and bring as many to salvation as possible. Then later the messiah will come to bring judgment and wrath upon those who oppose or reject God. So the harsh terminology about "baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire" and so forth is not negated. It still will apply at a point in the future.

III. The Holy Spirit builds the church

After Jesus was anointed he went about his ministry, establishing the kingdom and doing the will of God, and there is little mention of the Spirit leading him or initiating actions. With the church it is different. The Acts of the Apostles is a New Testament book that describes the expansion of the church from a limited number of Jewish believers in Jerusalem to many believers thorough the Greek-speaking world, to Rome and beyond. Repeatedly it is the Holy Spirit that initiates or facilitates events.

Before he ascends to heaven Jesus tells the disciples to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), which comes in chapter 2. With the coming of the Spirit the apostles are emboldened and in a sense their ministry begins. Peter gives his sermon in chapter 2, then he heals a lame man and preaches again in the temple in chapter 3.

For the healing and preaching Peter and John are arrested and brought before the chief priests of the temple. Peter should have been intimidated but "filled with the Holy Spirit" he gives a bold speech about salvation through Jesus Christ (4:8-12). The chief priests knew the disciples were "uneducated and ordinary men" and were surprised by their boldness (4:13). The priests weren't sure what to do, so they released them but threatened them and insisted they stop speaking or teaching in the name of Jesus (4:18). The apostles returned to their friends and prayed. "They were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness" (4:31).

The Book of Acts describes both a geographic and an ethnic expansion of the church, and the Holy Spirit is deeply involved in the entire process. First there is a small ethnic step. The followers of Jesus were mostly Galileans (as was Jesus) and Jews from around Jerusalem. They probably spoke Aramaic, a Semitic language of the region, in their private lives. But there were also "Hellenists" in the Jerusalem church, Jews whose personal language was Greek and who had more knowledge of Greek culture. Greek was so pervasive in the eastern Mediterranean at the time, this was not unusual. The Hellenists objected that they were not being treated fairly and had no part in church leadership. The apostles chose 7 such men for leadership positions. The selection criteria was that they be "full of the Spirit and wisdom" (6:3) and also stated that they be "full of faith and the Holy Spirit" (6:5).

In chapter 7 Stephen, the church's first martyr, is stoned and the other followers of Christ in Jerusalem are persecuted. The disciples scatter. Philip, one of the church leaders, went to nearby Samaria and preached. In Samaria people worshiped the one true God and claimed to be Israelites but for historical reasons their practices were a bit different and their lineage was questioned. Because the Samaritans listened eagerly to Philip, the church sent Peter and John to them. Evidently Peter, John, and the rest of the church were not sure what to make of this interest, but they prayed and laid hands on the Samaritans, at which point the Samaritans "received the Holy Spirit" (8:15, 17). From the context something outward and dramatic happened, almost certainly speaking in tongues like the phenomenon described in chapter 2. The Holy Spirit, by this action, ratified that Samaritans were included in the community of Christ-followers.

Philip gets another assignment. An angel of the Lord tells him to go to Gaza, a completely different direction from Jerusalem than Samaria (8:26). Three verses later the Spirit tells Philip to get in a chariot (8:29) where a high official from Ethiopia was riding. The Ethiopian, a eunuch, was puzzling over some Jewish scripture. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home (8:27-28). Philip explains the scripture, which was a prophecy about Jesus. The Ethiopian is converted and Philip baptizes him with water (8:35-38).

The Ethiopian was a proselyte, someone with no Jewish ancestry but who had converted to the Jewish faith and worshiped the God of Israel. By bringing this eunuch into the church the church had, in effect, spread to another continent (Africa) and to a whole new ethnic group. Yet because he was a proselyte the church hierarchy could still imagine the church was a movement for Jews. It is interesting to note the eunuch did not in any way disavow Judaism; being a Jew and a Christian at the same time made perfect sense to everyone.

Logically the next step is the conversion of gentiles, but in order to take that major step Jesus had to bring in his chosen man who would be "the apostle to the Gentiles," Paul. Chapter 9 tells the well known story of Paul being struck blind on the road to Damascus, of his encounter with the risen Christ, and his conversion. Specifically his conversion occurred when a believer, Ananias, came to Paul and said, "the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit" (9:17).

Being a Christ-follower and a Jew at the same time was normal, expected, and routine for the very early church. Being a Christ-follower but not a Jew was virtually incomprehensible. It falls to Peter, the de facto head of the church, to convert the first gentiles. A Roman army centurion named Cornelius, an Italian stationed in Caesarea, the major port of Judea, was a worshiper of God and a devout man but he had not taken any steps to become Jewish. He was not a proselyte, he remained a gentile. An angel told him to send for Peter and invite him to come speak (10:1-9). As the men Cornelius sent are approaching, Peter has a vision, the same vision, three times over again, in which various unclean animals are placed before him and a voice says, "Get up Peter, kill and eat" (10:9-16). Jews have strict dietary prohibitions against eating the flesh of unclean animals. About that time Cornelius' messengers appear and the Spirit tells Peter to go with them (10:17-23).

When Peter arrives Cornelius has assembled his whole household. Peter says, "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean" (10:28). Cornelius explains his encounter with the angel, so Peter tells them the good news, a summary of which is in 10:34-43.

Even though Peter had seen his vision and surmised that God intended to include the gentiles, it was going to be very hard for the church in Jerusalem to accept the fact that gentiles were included. Peter had a couple things going for him when he eventually needed to persuade his brethren of what God had done. Other Jews from the Jerusalem church were with him witnessing what happened and the Holy Spirit dramatically confirmed the conversion of the gentiles. See 10:44-46

While Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word.
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles,
for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God.

In reporting to the church in Jerusalem, Peter asks, "If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?" (11:17) So the church accepted inclusion of the gentiles.

In the rest of the Book of Acts the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of believers and in building the church. The Spirit is key to identifying and selecting people for mission or ministry ((11:24, 13:2&4, 16:28). It is part of consultations over decisions (15:28, 19:21). Speaking in tongues, described as God giving the Holy Spirit, or baptism in the Holy Spirit are indications of full membership in the church (15:8, 19:1-6). The Spirit gives warnings to the community (of a coming famine in 11:27-28) and to an individual (warning Paul against going to Jerusalem 21:4&11). Paul also receives empowerment for a spiritual confrontation (13:9), encouragement (13:52), and the Spirit gives Paul direction on where to go / not go for his missionary journey (16:6&8).

An aside: Verses 16:6 & 8 are interesting because of the interchangeability of identifications. First the Holy Spirit told Paul "not to speak the word in Asia" then the Spirit of Jesus did not allow Paul and his party to go into Bithynia. It appears Paul received two messages from the same source; functionally the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus are the same thing. Note also at the end of Acts, in 28:25, there is a quote from the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, introduced by this statement, "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah..." If you add all this together in a literal way what I take these verses to say is: The one true God by His Spirit inspired the prophets of old and that same God filled Jesus Christ with His Spirit, and Jesus imparts that same Spirit of God to us.

Now when Paul (or we) receive anything from the Holy Spirit, it is God's Spirit working through the resurrected Jesus Christ and then coming to Paul (or us). The resurrected Jesus is our intermediary with the Father, and it might be said another way, the Spirit of Jesus Christ is the intermediary between the Holy Spirit and us. Because Jesus fully expresses the will of the Father, the New Testament most of the time simply refers to the Holy Spirit when describing the interaction God - Jesus - human believer, or said another way, Holy Spirit - Spirit of Jesus - human believer.

IV. The Gospel of John

Much theology in the Bible is in the form of narrative theology. Points are made by telling a story. Each of the gospels are narrative theology as well as histories of Jesus' life and ministry. The first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, portray Jesus as he lived but with an effort to present him in a light most meaningful to their community or their intended audience. John is unique; writing for a community some five decades after the resurrection, and to a community without the expectation of Christ's immediate return, John gives us a portrait of the resurrected Jesus. Because this portrait is "painted" in the setting of Jesus' earthly ministry, some confusion arises between traits the resurrected Jesus has versus those of Jesus before his glorification. Nevertheless John's gospel is of great benefit to those of us, like his community, who are living in that long period before the second coming.

One of the very useful things is what John's gospel has to say about the Holy Spirit. It is discussed in the context of John differentiating his message from the other gospels. When Jesus encounters Nicodemus, Nicodemus asks about the kingdom of God, the major theme of Jesus' preaching in the other three gospels. Jesus responds talking about the new birth and eternal life, which are Jesus' big themes in the gospel of John. Jesus says to enter the kingdom of God you have to be born again, specifically, born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). As is often the case in John, Jesus does not explain things as much as we might like but this seems to be a reference to the two major events when one become a Christian (at least in John's community); water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

The gospel of John is unique in its focus on life in the church after the expectation of Christ's prompt return fades. Of special interest is chapter 14 through 17. Unique in the four gospels, in these chapters Jesus is specifically preparing his followers for the time after he is has gone to heaven. The first three chapters (14-16) are discourse and the fourth (17) is Jesus' prayer. Jesus is preparing the disciples not only for the trauma of the crucifixion but also for life without his physical presence after the resurrection.

For me as a writer within western culture with a predisposition to logical, sequential, orderly presentation of ideas, John 14 - 17 is maddening. A quick overview of chapter 14 illustrates my problem. In the first 3 verses Jesus talks about going "to prepare a place for you" but after that says very little about disciples going to heaven. Starting about verse 4 we have the metaphorical assertion that Jesus is the way. In verse 7 Jesus is talking about the Father, and in verse 10 he makes the point "I am in the Father and the Father in me". Then around verse 12 a hopeful promise to the disciples that they will do the works Jesus did, and even greater works. In verse 15 Jesus promises to send the Spirit of Truth ("he will be in you"). Verse 23 Jesus talks about he and the Father coming to believers and making their home with them. Then he talks about the Advocate, who is also the Holy Spirit, around verse 25. The text jumps all over the place.

The goal of the gospel to persuade emotionally, not logically, to draw the reader (or hearer) in so their pattern of thought comes to coincide with the point of view of Jesus. How, as a "left-brained" westerner, am I to deal with this, in order to get at (what I call) theology? I guess the first thing is to recognize John was not written for lovers of sequential logic like me. The meaning is there, profound meaning. It's just not presented in the way that best suits me. (One pentecostal friend, an ordained AG minister told me, "The gospel of John is where I live!") Then the second is to ask my questions of the text, to bring out the kind of order I seek.

What are the points John / Jesus makes to prepare the church for difficult times, starting with the crucifixion?

One is to warn of persecution so they will not be surprised when it comes (15:18-25, 16:31-33). A second is to give a foretaste of coming events, "A little while and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, you will see me..." (16:16 and following) which seems to refer crucifixion and resurrection. Third, Jesus instructs them on how to live. He, Jesus, is "the way" i.e. the example of how to live and the example of love. They must love one another (15:12-17).

Fourth, Jesus promises good things in the future. There is a quick reference (presumably) to heaven, "in my Father's house there are many dwelling places... I go to prepare a place for you" (14:2) but the text does not dwell on that. There is a promise that the disciples will do even greater works than Jesus has done (14:12) and repeated promises Jesus will answer any prayer, whatever they ask (14:13, 15:16).

But concerning good things to come, in terms of the number of references and the volume of text, Jesus talks most about the Holy Spirit. A great benefit of Jesus leaving this world is that the Holy Spirit will come, enabling the church to live in this world. Jesus talks about the Spirit frequently and in a number of different ways. As someone from a pentecostal / charismatic background here is what I see in the text:

As in so many things, Jesus is the example, the pioneer of receiving the Holy Spirit. He received the Spirit after his baptism by John the Baptist. So we have this statement in John 14:9-11, "... Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me..." This phrasing ("the Father is in me") tracks closely with the description of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers later in the chapter. It describes the Spirit of God dwelling in Jesus, being welcomed by Jesus, and leading Jesus' words and actions. This is an example to us.

Jesus is also "in the Father". Jesus loves the Father and is deeply committed to Him and to doing His will. When the Spirit dwells in your heart there will be a dynamic, loving relationship between you and God.

Jesus talks about the Spirit coming to believers in several ways. The Father, at Jesus' request, will send another Advocate (14:16). The Greek word for advocate is translated various ways in different Bible versions; as helper, advocate... A transliteration of the Greek yields paraclete. Note the word "another" in verse 16. The paraclete will do the things Jesus did for his disciples, guiding, teaching, helping when they stumble and so forth. They will miss Jesus after the crucifixion / resurrection / ascension, but functionally the paraclete will be there to do things Jesus did for them.

The paraclete is equated with the Spirit of Truth (14:17) and with the Holy Spirit (14:26). So there are at least three terms for the same thing. Evidently the terms refer to different functions of the Spirit, but they all refer to the Spirit. The function of the Spirit of Truth is to enable the disciples to see events and reality as God sees them, not as the world does.

Note the two prepositions: the paraclete / Spirit of truth abides with you [now, while Jesus is still on earth] but will abide in you [after Jesus goes to heaven and the Spirit is sent] (14:17). Similarly after Jesus departs the disciples will "see" him because he will be "in" the disciples (14:20) and because he and the Father will come and make their home with the disciples (14:23). Jesus will be revealed to his followers after he goes to heaven (14:21) by being with them spiritually.

A couple places in the New Testament Jesus or his followers are analogized to the Temple, where God chose to dwell. John is saying, yes, but there is more to it. Not only will the Father and Jesus be in you by the Spirit (14:17, 20, and 23) but we will be in them jointly as part of a family with them (14:20, 23). Jesus is telling his disciples something new, hard to understand because they have experienced nothing like it before. Jesus offers an analogy, he is the vine, we are the branches (15:1-8).

Prior to this study I thought of the true vine passage as a description of any Christian life, and where we think of Jesus as our source of value, purpose, direction, strength and so on. With a reading of the lead-in of chapter 14, and with the passage bracketed by references to the advocate / helper / paraclete in 14:26 and 15:26, I'm convinced the true vine passage is descriptive of life in the Spirit. It is one way of thinking how Jesus can be in us, and we in him.

One promise of abiding in Jesus, as branches in the vine, is that we will "bear much fruit" (15:5). For most evangelical churches, bearing fruit means bringing in converts. But converts are not mentioned in these passages. From context I believe the reference is to the fruit of the Spirit, love, joy, peace and such.

Jesus warns about the world's hatred and persecution (15:18-25) then tells more about the function of the paraclete / Spirit of truth, that it will help them testify when persecuted (15:26-27).

In chapter 16 Jesus repeats and adds to earlier themes; it is to his followers' advantage that Jesus goes away (i.e. crucifixion / resurrection / ascension) so that Jesus can send the Spirit to them (16:7). The Spirit will perform a revelatory function revealing things about sin, righteousness and judgment (16:8-11), and he will guide the disciples in "all the truth" (16:13).

Jesus forewarns that they will weep (due to the crucifixion) but they will see him again and their sorrow will turn to joy (16:19-22). This phenomenon of seeing Jesus again occurs when Jesus sends the paraclete / Spirit of truth / Holy Spirit. That will be a source of joy that cannot be taken from them (16:22).

John 14 - 17 is a passage unique in the New Testament, where Jesus is telling his disciples about life after his resurrection, after he ascends to heaven. Jesus is talking about the era you and I live in, and his primary point is that he will send the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit in our hearts is the key to living the Christian life.

V. Romans and Life in the Spirit

Romans is the first of Paul's letters in the New Testament. It was probably not the first written but it's the longest, so it was placed at the front. Like most all of the letters, Paul had a reason for writing. The best scholarly guess is that there was division in the Roman church between ethnic Jews and gentiles. Evidently the Jews felt superior because Jesus was a Jew, the church started and was headquartered in Jerusalem, the scriptures of the early church were the Jewish scriptures, and so on. Although Jews were understandably proud of their heritage, gentile believers must have resented claims of superiority.

Paul wanted to persuade the Roman Christians that everyone is of equal value and no group should assume itself superior to another. He could have argued that all are equal because salvation is a matter of faith and allegiance. After all when Jesus preached, his topic was the Kingdom of God and the importance of being part of that kingdom. If you repent, acknowledge Jesus as Lord, believe he was resurrected and now lives, then presumably you are "in". You have chosen to belong to Christ rather than to the ungodly world.

Paul cannot take this approach because of a serious problem. The kingdom of God sounded like insurrection against Roman rule. Jesus' phrase "the kingdom of God" evoked the ideas of Jewish apocalypticism which included a strong political dimension with the goal of Israel becoming a powerful, independent nation. The Jews had a history of insurrection and Roman rulers were nervous in any case. It was not too troubling for Jesus, in Judea, to talk to Jewish audiences explaining that the kingdom was primarily a spiritual matter. To write to a half-Gentile audience in the very heart of the empire and to talk of allegiance to some kingdom or king other than the emperor would be disastrous.

Paul innovates. Instead of talking about loyalty and allegiance to God he talks about sin which separates us from God. Paul recognizes the great things Jews have (the Mosaic law, etc.) but says they are not enough because Jews have been unable to fully keep the law. "All who have sinned apart from the law [i.e. gentiles] will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law [i.e. Jews] will be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12). The Jews have many advantages from their heritage but that is not enough because, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).

By accepting Jesus all who believe "are now justified by his [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith" (Rom 3:24-25).

Now Paul can say to the ethnic Jews in the Roman church, "Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also..." (Rom 3:27-29).

Paul's innovation raises a number of theological questions. If we are justified by grace as a gift, why not keep on sinning, since Jesus' sacrifice covers it all? How is it that the sacrifice of one man can address the sins of such a large number of people? Is the law superseded? If the law is not the primary source of guidance, what source gives direction in life? If Jews are no better than gentiles, what happens to those Jews who do not accept Christ? Are they condemned on the day of judgment?

Paul spends the next 7 chapters on these issues. First he reviews the benefits of Christ's sacrifice in 5:1-11. We are justified, which I believe means our disobedience no longer makes us unacceptable to God. We have access to God and His blessings, we have hope of a marvelous future with God, and "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (5:5). Paul also cautions we will face suffering in the present. In my own words, justification et al changes us and our future, but it does not change present circumstances.

In 5:12-21 Paul analogizes Jesus to Adam. This is one answer to how Jesus' single act of sacrifice removes the sins of so many. "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (5:18).

In 6:1-14 Paul analogizes baptism, which each believer experienced, with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. In a spiritual sense we have participated, dying and rising with Christ. We have "died to sin" and should walk "in newness of life." This argument covers two points; it tends to show how one man's sacrifice could affect multitudes, and it shows that just because Jesus' sacrifice takes care of sin, we should not keep on sinning. On the latter point, Paul describes sin as a kind of force independent of the individual. He talks about being "enslaved to sin" (5:6), and after baptism "freed from sin" (5:7), "died to sin" (5:10), and "dead to sin" (5:11). Because we participate with Christ via baptism, sin has no right over us and we must refuse to submit to it, for "you are not under law but under grace" (5:12-14).

Paul decides this topic, urging believers to turn away from sin, deserves more discussion. In 6:15-23 he analogizes sin to slavery. In Paul's world slavery did not have connotations of racism nor did it imply that an individual was inferior. It was a fact of life, slavery was widespread. Although no one would want to be a slave, in fact everyone existed in a hierarchy of obligations so slavery could be used as an analogy for the forces that exert control over a person. Paul says we used to be slaves to sin, but we are freed from that bond. However we are not freed in order to do as we please; we become "slaves" of righteousness. We have a new set of obligations and loyalties. Furthermore it is vitally important not to return to sinning because, "you are slaves of the one who you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness" (6:16).

Next Paul takes a dramatic step which must have been a surprise to the ethnic Jews in the Roman church. He asserts not only that we have died to sin, but died to the obligation to keep the Mosaic law. In 7:1-6 he says Jews being under the law were like people with a marriage obligation. They had to keep their vows. But now that they have died (with Christ through baptism) they were no longer under the law. After all a widow or widower is free to marry again. "Now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" (7:6).

Paul's theological innovation is needed because it is hard to imagine a close knit church community hanging together if half the members follow the law, keep kosher, etc. while the other half doesn't even know the law and ignores it. Nevertheless Paul's position must have shocked Jewish believers. It was not the position of the church leaders in Jerusalem (see Acts 15), and the Jewish Christians I know even today try to keep kosher and generally obey the Mosaic law.

Paul refutes the implication that the law is evil. In 7:7-13 he says no, the law is holy and just but sin uses it as an opportunity to draw us into deliberate and obvious wrongdoing. Paul also anticipates the realistic observation that even believers sin although they have been baptized. Paul admits, yes this is true. He is torn as we all are. His natural self, his "flesh," is drawn to sin, but his mind is devoted to God. This is the condition of every Christian, and describing it leads to Chapter 8 where Paul addresses the problem.

Even though we falter, we are not condemned if we "are in Christ Jesus" (8:1). Back in 5:5 Paul told us God placed the Spirit in us, now we need to be in Christ Jesus. This means we have to "walk according to the Spirit" and "live according to the Spirit" and "set our minds on the things of the Spirit" (5:4-6). Jews were used to living by the law, following its requirements and using it as a guide to life. Paul offers a replacement; life in the Spirit. This is the guide to how Christians are to conduct their daily life.

This requirement sounds general, not specific. How confident can we be of pleasing God if we continue to stumble from time to time? Paul reassures, "you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life..." (8:9-10). Note, as in John, the Spirit is the Spirit of God through the Spirit of Christ coming to us.

In case this starts to sound like too lax an obligation Paul repeats that we are obligated ("debtors") to live according to the Spirit (8:12-13) then Paul offers an additional reason, a carrot rather than a stick. We are children of God (8:14). We should naturally want to be like our father and our brother. [Next Paul uses the word "spirit" in the routine, vernacular sense of state of mind, attitude, etc.] "You did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear [of condemnation under the law] but you have received a spirit of adoption" (8:15). God has adopted us as His sons. And not only are we children of God, we are joint heirs with Jesus Christ (8:17). There is plenty of motivation to behave like members of the family in good standing.

Paul once again recognizes that we will experience suffering. First he reassures us it is trivial in comparison to the glory of God that will come and that we will participate in (8:18). Next he reminds us that the Spirit helps us pray and even intercedes for us (8:26-27). Then he assures us with that well known phrase, "all things work together for good for those who love God" (8:28). God will use even our trials and difficulties to develop His plan for our lives, and he will glorify us (8:30).

The final point is that God loves us and nothing "will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (8:39). Recall from chapter 5 the love of God was poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given to us. What greater motivation to live according to the Spirit than to know God's tremendous love for us?

Finally, chapters 9-11 discuss the Jews who do not accept Christ. Paul is in anguish. He cares deeply for the Jewish people and their heritage. He wishes they could be saved because at the present time [as he writes] they are not. They must accept Jesus as lord. But Paul insists "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (11:29) and that somehow in the end all Israel will be saved.

VI. Spiritual issues at Corinth

A. 1st Corinthians

Paul starts most of his letters with appropriate salutation then a mention of his praying for the intended recipients. Often the prayers, in a positive way, refer to matters where the addressees could benefit from his advice. For the Corinthians he thanks God that they have been enriched (1:4), presumably in spiritual ways, and that they will not be lacking in any spiritual gift (1:7). These are hints the Corinthians are actively displaying the presence of the Spirit in their church life but need advice on doing things in the right way.

One of the problems the Corinthian church faced was internal divisions. Factions seem to have expressed loyalty to different early church leaders (Apollos, Cephas...3:22), and many were impressed by lofty words and wisdom (2:1). Paul makes it clear the things of God are not grasped by worldly wisdom, rather that spiritual things are spiritually discerned (2:14).

Paul preaches allegiance to a savior and lord who was crucified. That cannot make sense to secular people. Only with the help of the Spirit can we begin to understand. Clever arguments, beautiful words and worldly wisdom will not bring understanding of the faith. Those who are spiritual, meaning (to me) humbly seeking God and eager to receive the things of God, can discern spiritual things. For those whose starting point is unbelief, or who place confidence in human reason or human wisdom, the things of God will not make sense.

Next Paul writes strongly against various forms of immorality practiced by members of the Corinthian church. Paul may be particularly sensitive because he was the one who said Christians were no longer bound by the law. He did not want to be understood to say Christians were thus free to behave badly. So Paul disapproves in strong terms. One powerful argument Paul uses in 6:12-20 also makes a point about the Spirit. He condemns fornication and sex with prostitutes (and he may have been referring to sex with prostitutes in pagan temples). Paul says our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God dwells in us. Fornication is a sin against the body itself, defiling the body. We must glorify God in our body (7:20). So almost in passing, Paul makes an extraordinary point. The Spirit of God, the creator of the universe, dwells in us!

In chapter 11 Paul addresses a problem between members of the church. Since each have the Spirit in them, and there are outward signs of the presence of the Spirit, everyone is expressing their spirituality in their own way and, evidently, claiming their way is the best. First Paul makes a quick point about speaking in tongues which I will address below. Next he reminds the Corinthians that although there are many ways the Spirit may impact believers' lives, there is only one God and one Lord, and it is the same Spirit that enables all the varieties of activities (12:4-6). This leads in to the point he makes at greater length later in the chapter about unity in the church and serving the common good.

As an aside, terminology is worth noting. Paul refers to gifts, varieties of services, varieties of activities, and manifestations of the Spirit. It does not appear he was trying to initiate a taxonomy of things of the Spirit. He was just being all inclusive and leading in a comprehensive way to his major point about serving the common good.

Paul enumerates different ways in which the Spirit can be manifested in 12:8-10. Working through believers in a voluntary way the Spirit may enable them to speak words of wisdom, to express knowledge not otherwise available to them, to have extraordinary faith, to heal people, to work miracles, to prophesy [this may mean predicting the future, more commonly it means expressing God's view on a matter in the present], to discern spirits [there is a spiritual dimension to reality and it is populated by dynamic beings not all of whom are loyal to God], to speak in tongues, and to interpret speech in tongues. As believers live with awareness of the Spirit in them, as they fellowship with other Spirit-filled believers, and as they study the Bible, these things will become more and more meaningful.

Paul reminds the Corinthians they are all part of one body, the body of Christ (12:12). Every part has value, every part has something to contribute, so do not claim superiority for your gift, rather Paul hopes there will be "no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another" (12:25). Paul extends his point beyond spiritual manifestations to include various functions in the church such as apostles, prophets, teachers, healers, leaders, people who assist... (12:28).

Paul expands his point in the great chapter 13, the "faith, hope and charity" chapter. The obligation of members of the Corinthians church is not just to honor and care for one another but to love one another. Love is more important than all the gifts and powers, special knowledge, good deeds and so on.

In chapter 14 Paul discusses two manifestations which may have been particular sources of disorder, speaking in tongues and prophecy. Let me quickly mention early in chapter 12 Paul advises no one speaking "by the Spirit of God" (i.e. from context speaking in tongues) ever says "Let Jesus be cursed" (12:3). Evidently some people were making a big deal of speaking in tongues and detractors were saying they did not even know the meaning of their speech. Paul assures that when speaking in tongues you do not say bad things, but still you need to do it with the right intention and attitude, with consideration for your fellow church members.

In chapter 14 Paul essentially says speaking in tongues is great but prophecy is even better because it benefits others in the church who can understand what is being said and can receive upbuilding, encouragement and consolation (14:4). If you want to speak in tongues in church meetings, pray for the power of interpretation of tongues so you can give others a message they can understand (14:5).

To review, in Acts 2:1-13 speaking in tongues was a sign to foreigners in Jerusalem of the outpouring of the Spirit. In Acts 10:44-47 it was proof to Jewish Christians that God was including the gentiles in the church as well. In Acts 19:1-7 speaking in tongues was confirmation that the believers had received the Holy Spirit, which was something in addition to believing and being water baptized. Now in I Corinthians 14 speaking in tongues is regarded as a private prayer language. "Those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God" (14:2). "If I pray in a tongue my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive" (14:14). So Paul says, do both (14:15). After all praying in tongues will build you up (14:4).

For those who might quote chapter 14 to condemn speaking in tongues, Paul says, "Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues" (14:5), and "I speak in tongues more than you all" (14:18). Paul is simply saying there is an appropriate place for tongues, and that is private prayer and praise, rather than as a message to the church (unless the message is interpreted).

Two final points: First, we are in control of when and what we speak. There is no overwhelming impulse forcing us to speak in tongues or prophecy. We can choose what to do in the appropriate time and place. "The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace" (14:32-33).

Second, we as believers, have a spirit ourselves. When we pray in tongues it is our own spirit that does the praying. "...if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays..." (14:14). It is not the Holy Spirit of God in us that is doing the praying, it is our own spirit. If we are able to prophesy, when we do it is our spirit doing it (14:32). As I understand it, the Holy Spirit leads or inspires what we say in prayer or prophecy.

I have not come across the verses that say if every human has a spirit, or just believers. I am inclined to say a spirit is born in us when we are saved, and that is what the gospel of John, chapter 3 is talking about. Recall Jesus says, "No one can see the kingdom of God without being born again" (John 3:3) and "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit" (3:5). Neither John nor Paul explain the details, but it may be that we become alive in the spirit dimension when we commit ourselves to Jesus Christ.

B. 2d Corinthians

Reading 2d Corinthians is like coming into a room where someone is on the phone. You have come in the middle of the conversation and you are only hearing one side of it. What is the conversation about? Paul has evidently postponed a trip to Corinth, and he implies it is a good thing because he would have to criticize them if he came (1:12 - 2:4). Possibly one problem was that the Corinthians were turning to Jewish practices and trying to follow the Jewish law (for example regarding diet, or days or rest...). I say this because chapter 3 is about comparing the new covenant, through Christ, to the old covenant through the law of Moses.

Paul says God has made them (Paul and the party traveling with him) "ministers of a new covenant, not of letter [i.e. the law of Moses written down in the Torah] but of spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (3:6). Paul even refers to the old covenant under the law as something that could never bring life or hope:

"Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone tablets [surely a reference to the stone tablets Moses received on Mount Sinai] came in glory ... a glory now set aside,
how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory?
For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory!
Indeed, what once had glory has lost its glory because of the greater glory,
for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!" (3:7-11)

So Paul regards the law of Moses as a ministry of death, a ministry of condemnation, and something which has been set aside! Paul is referring to the law of Moses which has been the basis of the relationship between God and the Jews for thousands of years, and even from Paul's perspective was the core of the covenant between God and man (represented by God's chosen people) for over a thousand years. We, indeed all, are now free from the law of Moses; "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (3:17). This new covenant comes from the Lord, the Spirit (3:18).

Thus Paul characterizes, in the strongest terms, the comparative importance of this new relationship between God and man, based upon the dwelling of the Spirit in our hearts.

Chapter 6 reminds of of a point Paul has made before. We are "the temple of the living God" (6:16). God is Spirit [John 4:24] and it is the living God Himself who dwells in us. We may say the Holy Spirit dwells in us, but that is God. Now of course as creator of the universe God can be many places at once. One of God's choices is to dwell in us. Because we are a holy temple Paul urges us not to be mismatched with unbelievers (6:14-7:1).

VIII. The balance of the New Testament

Most of the points that have already come up in this study come up again in various passages in the rest of the New Testament.

A. We have received the Holy Spirit and it dwells in us. Furthermore this Spirit is understood to be the Spirit of Christ as well as the Spirit of God.

"Did you receive the Spirit by doing works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Galatians 3:2)

"Does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?" (Gal 3:5)

"God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts" (Gal 4:5).

"... with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you are also built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God" (Ephesians 2:22).

"To them God chose to make known how great among the gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27).

"Whomever rejects this [the call to holiness] rejects not human authority but God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you" (1 Thessalonians 4:8).

"To the exiles of the dispersion [i.e. Jewish Christians in Asia Minor] who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit..." (1 Peter 1:2).

"If you are reviled in the name of Christ you are blessed, because the spirit of glory, which is the Spirit of God, is resting on you" (1 Pet 4:14).

"And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us" (1 John 3:24).

"By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit... God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God" (1 John 4:13,15).

B. The covenant by the Spirit is superior to the Mosaic covenant

See Galatians 3:3-5 mentioned in A. above.

C. A call for unity in the church

"... making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit just as you were called in the one hope..." (Eph 4:3-4).

"If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit ... make my joy complete..." (Philippians 2:1).

D. A call to behave properly

"Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh ... for if you are led by the Spirit you are not subject to the law" (Gal 5:16-18).

"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption" (Eph 4:30).

"Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18).

"... For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness. Therefore whoever rejects this rejects not human authority, but God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you" (1 Thess 4:7-8).

"Do not quench the Spirit" (1 Thess 5:19).

E. The Spirit reveals truths

"In former generations this mystery was not made known to men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that is, the Gentiles are fellow heirs..." (Eph 3:5-6).

"And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth..." (1 John 5:6)

F. The Spirit helps in adversity

"Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and th

D. The Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God is a very major topic in the first three gospels. If you look in a concordance, which is a book that lists every word in the Bible and the verses where the word appears, "kingdom" shows up many times in Matthew, Mark and Luke. In fact the purpose of Jesus' ministry appears to be inaugurating the kingdom. See his statements at the beginning of his ministry in Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, and Luke 4:43.

Kingdom appears only 4 times in John. It is there twice during Jesus' interaction with Nicodemus in chapter 3 and twice during his interaction with Pilate before the crucifixion. The interaction with Pilate essentially shows Jesus has no quarrel with Pilate, and by implication the church has no quarrel with Rome. The interaction with Nicodemus has greater theological significance.

Chapter 3 tells the story. Nicodemus, a Pharisee, comes to Jesus by night (presumably he did not want his high status colleagues to see him) and starts the conversation with a very general statement that Jesus must come from God. Perhaps discerning what is in Nicodemus' mind, Jesus tells him "no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again" (verse 3) and that "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit" (5). This encounter is early in Jesus' ministry and the kingdom of God is not mentioned again in the gospel of John until the discussion with Pilate.

Up to this point in time in the life of the early church, per the other three gospels, the kingdom of God was understood to be the major theme of Jesus' preaching and teaching. John is saying in effect, "not in my gospel". The overarching metaphor for what Jesus brings to the world is, per John, the new birth, a new life in Christ. In myriad ways throughout the gospel the writer will offer biological metaphors for what Jesus means to his followers. The famous verse John 3:16 expresses the theme that will occur repeatedly through the gospel, "For God so loved the world that He gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."

In addition to new birth and eternal life, the gospel describes Jesus as the source of living water (4:10 also 7:38), the bread of life (6:35), and the source of abundant life (10:10).

One reason for the shift in metaphor may be that setting up a kingdom sounds political, military, and removed from ordinary life. Eternal life sounds upbeat, of personal importance, and emotionally pleasing. Since I believe the writer is making an emotional rather than a logical argument, eternal life might have a lot more impact.

Probably a more important reason for the shift is the kingdom of God looks forward to a triumphant messiah, the messiah who would be a king and a conqueror on this earth. This is the messiah the disciples expected in Matthew and Mark. [Admittedly Luke softens this image because he was writing for a gentile audience, unfamiliar and un-enthused about Jewish expectations.] The triumphant messiah is the one for whom the church in Jerusalem waited expectantly in those early years after the resurrection. But by the time of John's gospel, decades had passed. People were not motivated by the expectation of Christ's return and ultimate vindication on a future day of judgment, because it didn't seem too likely that day would come soon.

Looking closer at the phrase "eternal life" may illustrate this difference. In Matthew the phrase occurs twice. In 19:16 a rich young ruler asks Jesus what he must do to have eternal life. From subsequent discussion with the disciples (19:23-30) it becomes apparent the issue is salvation and reward in the afterlife. In 25:46 the discussion is about the last judgment where "some will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." It is a reference to the future, after the second coming.

The gospel of Mark makes reference to eternal punishment (3:29), then in 10:17 offers the phrase "inherit eternal life". To me the word "inherit" refers to a future event, perhaps after the last judgment. In that same passage Jesus reassures those disciples who have left their families to follow Jesus that they will someday receive all manner of blessings "and in the age to come, eternal life" (10:30). When the gospel of Luke mentions eternal life, in both cases it is a reference to inheriting it, rather than some present and immediate experience (10:25 , 18:18).

So the other three gospels regard eternal life as something in the future, presumably after the last judgment. Contrast that with the gospel of John where it says in 17:2-3 that the Father has given the son authority "to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." For John eternal life is a here and now blessing, living in fellowship with God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

John had to motivate his people with a new way of looking at what Jesus means to his church. John replaced the Kingdom of God as the major topic of Jesus' ministry and preaching with biological metaphors of birth and life. John was inspired by the spirit to offer the church a new package of ideas, metaphors, instructions for living, and even identity for living in the indeterminate period until Christ returns. To us today, as a practical matter, John may be the most important of the gospels.

V. The Divinity of Jesus Christ

There are many verses in John that lead the reader to conclude that Jesus was God or Jesus was somehow equal with God and / or that Jesus was divine (that is in some sense having the qualities of God). These numerous verses can be grouped in four categories. There are instances where Jesus is equated with God, such as in the Prologue. There are references to preexistence, the most dramatic coming in chapter 8 ("before Abraham was, I am"). There are many assertions of Jesus having come down from heaven, and as being sent by God. Finally Jesus often uses the formulaic phrase - at least to religious Jews - of "I am" which is understood as a play on God's name in Exodus 3.

This whole collection of verses can be explained well by the doctrine of the Trinity. One godhead, three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, account for the the many claims of divinity and neatly handle the numerous times Jesus makes one of the claims in close connection with a reference to himself as the Son and God as the Father - which, without the doctrine of the Trinity, would mean the text was describing two different personalities.

The problem is the author of the gospel of John had never heard of the Trinity. Neither in John's gospel nor anywhere else in the Bible do you find the words Trinity, or godhead, or the phrase "God in three persons." Furthermore the doctrine of the Trinity was not adopted by the church until 321 AD at the Council of Nicea. Adoption of the doctrine was by a very close vote. Bishops who did not accept the Trinity were just shy of a majority. So it is not as if the gospel writer circa 90 AD was anticipating an obvious and immanent doctrinal development.

In addition the text of the gospel of John shows zero concern with the big theological problem the doctrine of the Trinity was invented to solve, namely how can Christianity claim to be monotheistic when two beings (God and Jesus) are worshiped? Surely if the writer was on the cusp of presenting a great doctrinal solution he would show some awareness of the problem.

You might say the Holy Spirit knew what was coming and He inspired these many verses which fit so closely with the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps so, but for my discussion I am assuming the human writer was inspired to write. The human author had ideas of how to bless his community with a unique way of describing what Jesus' life and ministry were about. The human author had some particular intention for his words. We need to understand the human intention before we can be confident of what the gospel is about. We should be very cautious about attributing a purpose and message to the gospel which never occurred to the human author.

To restate; the early church struggled with an apparent contradiction; it insisted Christianity was monotheistic yet it worshiped the risen Christ as well as God the Father. Ultimately the theological struggle led the church to adopt a doctrine which is also a paradox, one God in three persons. My sense is John, with all the verses implying divinity, was addressing a different problem, the problem of binding his community members to Christ so strongly that they would not fall away. It is not appropriate to interpret John's text from the perspective of the doctrinal disputes of the 3d and 4th centuries.

1. Jesus is God

Chapter 1 verse 1 ("In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.") has been discussed above. What seems to be a clear statement in English is not so clear in the original Greek.

In the passage 5:16 - 18 the Jews accost Jesus for healing a blind man on the sabbath. Jesus answers, My father is still working, and I also am working." Then the Jews wanted to kill him because he was "calling God his own father, thereby making himself equal to God." Literally the Jews are not saying Jesus is God, but rather that he claims in some sense to be equal. The short passage leaves a lot of theology to be explored and explained. Davidic kings were regarded as sons of God, the messiah was often considered to be a son of God... the passage seems intended to further the storyline rather than make a theological claim.

In chapter 10 Jesus tells us, "The Father and I are one" (10:30). To get the context you need to read verses 22 through 39. Jesus is at a major festival in Jerusalem and Jews are pressing Jesus to tell them if he is the messiah. Jesus does not directly answer their question but he repeatedly refers to God as his father, saying the works he has done, he has done in "my father's name" and also implying the father has given Jesus his sheep (his followers) which cannot be snatched away (v. 29). In the context of safeguarding or keeping the followers, Jesus is one with the Father. To me the sense is one of unity of purpose.

The passage continues with repeated references by Jesus to "the father" and then the Jews make a specific accusation to Jesus, "because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God" (33). Jesus replies, how can you say I am "blaspheming because I said 'I am God's son'?" (36). There is a hopeless tangle between claims that Jesus is God's son and Jesus is God. The writer seems to want to make as strong a claim as possible but does not assert that Jesus is God.

"Doubting Thomas" is the key figure in the passage 20:24-29. Thomas does not believe the other disciples, who tell of seeing Jesus risen from the dead. Then Jesus appears and directly addresses Thomas, who exclaims "my lord and my God!" (20:28). Jesus makes the teaching point, meaningful to readers of the gospel in John's community, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe" (v. 29).

At this point we have Thomas' testimony that Jesus is God, yet immediately following in verses 30-31 the author tells us the book was "written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the messiah, the son of God..." Once again the author offers a strong but claim (that Jesus is God) but puts the assertion in the mouth of an otherwise undistinguished disciple, and then the author pulls back to a claim only about sonship.

Almost all the passages where it appears to say Jesus is God, the real point seems to be that Jesus is the son of God, and the son of God is an extremely exalted figure.

2. The preexistence of Jesus

Chapter 8, verses 39 - 59, describe a dispute between Jesus and Jewish leaders over authority and legitimacy. As mentioned above, the gospel of John asserts that Jesus replaced or overrides Jewish traditions, customs and religious observances. Within this general context, there is a harsh argument where Jesus accuses the Jews of being children of the devil, of trying to kill an innocent man [Jesus himself], and generally not hearing God's words or doing His will. The Jews counter that Jesus is a Samaritan and has a demon, while they are children of Abraham, and indirectly express the view nobody is greater than Abraham (8:53).

Jesus adds to the argument that "whoever keeps my word will never taste death" (8:52). Jesus was talking about eternal life, a major topic of his ministry according to the gospel of John. The Jews didn't know what he was talking about. They were incredulous and argumentative.

It is in this context, with a dispute over authority and over the theological theme of eternal life, and in the heat of intense argument, that Jesus asserts "...before Abraham was, I am" (8:58). From the context this is not primarily a claim about chronology. It is an assertion of authority.

A claim about chronology does appear in verse 17:5. Jesus is praying in anticipation of his crucifixion which is only hours away. He says, "So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed." The point of the passage is to let the disciples, who are listening, know that Jesus is in charge of events, that the whole transaction if part of God's plan, and the the result will be Jesus' glorification. The chronological claim is incidental, but cannot be denied.

3. Jesus came from heaven

There are a great many passages in John where Jesus is said to come from heaven, to be sent by God, to be from God, and so on. A good example is in 3:31 - 36. In that short passage it says Jesus "comes from above", "comes from heaven", and refers to him as "he whom God has sent". Even though, in theory, the meaning of the words might be limited to the idea of agency rather than origin, it seems clear the author wants to assert that Jesus was previously in heaven, then came to earth, sent by God.

It is interesting that the gospel writer says nothing about Jesus' birth or childhood, even though the stories in Matthew and / or Luke must have been available to him. Instead we have the famous prologue then Jesus begins his ministry with the baptism by John the Baptist - and by the Holy Spirit which descends from heaven like a dove. The gospel writer has a narrative about the greatness, indeed the divinity of Jesus, and birth stories would only detract from the narrative.

4. I am

In Exodus 3:13-16 God reveals His divine name to Moses. Moses asks for the name and God answers two ways; "I am who I am" (3:14) and YHWH in 3:15. (God says, "Then you shall say to the Israelites, YHWH, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.")

I'll make three points about YHWH. First, Hebrew generally does not put vowels in the spelling of words. I was taught the pronunciation of the word should be yahweh. Many years ago Christians guessed it was Jehovah, but that is no longer accepted. Second, nobody knows what YHWH means other than it's God's name, but the guess when I was in seminary class was that it was an archaic form of the Hebrew verb "to be" with the sense of what might occur in the future, although I don't think Hebrew has a tense that exactly corresponds to the English future tense. The verb form was dropped from usage when it was considered a name for God.

Third, in my English versions of the Bible YHWH does not appear. Instead I see THE LORD in all capital letters. Translators are following Jewish tradition, so I am told. The name of God is so sacred we must not say it. Say "the lord" instead. But in the specific instance of writing "the lord" in place of the Hebrew word YHWH, capitalize the letters.

This hesitancy to say God's name extends to inappropriate use of the phrase "I am" because of the name as expressed in 3:14. Now all of us use "I am" in daily speech, but if you use it in a distinct way that suggests some sort of claim about your importance or exalted identity, it would be shocking and annoying to Jews. The gospel of John has examples of routine usage of the phrase, and of dramatic uses of the phrase. The gospel was written in Greek. Greek for I am is "ego eimi". My NRSV version of the Bible is pretty good about providing a footnote to verses in John where Jesus uses the "I am" phrase in a way which is a bit unusual in context.

The first such example is where Jesus is talking with the Samaritan woman at the well. The woman is asking about the messiah. Jesus answers, "I am the one who is speaking to you" (4:26). So the gospel writer is using a phrase strongly indicative of the divine name to show not that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is the messiah, who is a very exalted figure.

In chapter 6 the disciples are in the boat during a storm, very frightened, and Jesus comes to them walking on the water (6:16-21). Jesus calls out to them, "I am. Do not be afraid" (6:20). This strikes me as an assertion of great power and authority, but not necessarily a theological claim about being God.

Chapter 8:21-59 has the long, tense confrontation with the Jews. "I am" is used repeatedly (see verses 21 [twice], 23 [twice], 24, 28, and 58). This is all about Jesus' authority being greater than Abraham or the Jewish hierarchy.

Finally when Judas has betrayed Jesus and the temple officers come to arrest him, they say they are seeking Jesus of Nazareth and twice Jesus answers them, "I am" (18:5,6). This reminds me of Jesus walking on the water; he is in control in spite of the circumstances.

In the gospel of John, Jesus' use of a phrase very close to the divine name is shocking and powerful. Yet except for Jesus' affirmation (in chapter 4) that he is the messiah, the use of "I am" is not for the purpose of asserting his identity, nor making claims about the trinity, nor asserting Jesus is God, but rather for the purpose of asserting Jesus' authority in specific situations.

VI. Reflections

I came to the gospel of John with a set of expectations and, after study, found I had to greatly adjust my thinking. I was looking for discussion of major points of Christian theology, like the atonement and the trinity. I knew church theologians based important ideas on John, and ministers today often use John's text to support the standard theology of the church. What I found differed from my expectations in many ways.

The gospel writer loves to present powerful images, and evocative words and phrases, virtually without explanation. The word (logos) is one example, offering at least four profound associations to ideas in Greek and Jewish culture, without a satisfying explanation of the theological connections. Lamb of God is an example of such a phrase. Certainly it implies sacrifice because the lamb "takes away the sin of the world" but no explicit connection to Jewish religious practices is offered.

I think the lamb of God phrase in chapter 1 is a reference to the passover lamb sacrificed for the seder meal just before the Israelites exited from Egypt. It is the foremost example in the Old Testament of a lamb being sacrificed. Even more important, the gospel of John alone among the gospels makes the last supper take place the night before Passover, so the next afternoon Jesus is killed about the same time lambs throughout the country were slaughtered for Passover. The writer wants Jesus to be understood as the passover lamb for the whole world - even though the passover lamb in Exodus had nothing to do with "taking away sin."

Think about that. The writer of John deliberately changes the chronology of Jesus' life, specifically changes the day of the last supper and the crucifixion, to carry forward an image, a symbol of what Jesus' sacrifice was about. John never bothers to give us a theological explanation of how the symbol connects to the atonement but the powerful image is extremely important to him.

Time and time sequence are altered, when needed, as a tool to make a point. Jesus drives the money-changers from the temple in the last week of his life, according to the first three gospels. That helps us understand the great animosity the high priests had toward Jesus. Not so in John. Jesus drives out the moneychangers as one of his first acts at the start of his ministry. It is part of John's theology that Jesus overrides / supersedes / replaces Jewish ritual and tradition. It gives Jesus the opportunity to refer to his body as the temple.

In John theology is presented by symbols, images, words, phrases, and stories. What I call replacement theology is introduced by two stories, where Jesus changes water into wine and where Jesus calls his body the temple. Narrative theology makes its point by telling a story people can follow and by making the same point repeatedly in different stories or contexts. It rarely employs logic or sequential reasoning. It is designed to persuade emotionally rather than analytically. It is essential that you know the context, the circumstances of the story, the problem or question it is addressing, or you may miss the point. What is the point of changing water into wine? Perhaps it shows miraculous power but other acts, like healing the blind and lame, or raising the dead, do a better job of that. A sense of one of the author's themes, the superiority of Jesus over Jewish rites, helps the reader spot the point.

One thing the gospel makes clear is the preexistence of Jesus. This is a departure from the other three gospels. Is there an explanation other than John making a simple statement of fact? After all, John sometimes changes the timing of things to make his points. I look at the gospel writer's purpose - as best I can divine it - and then work backwards to see how preexistence may relate to the author's objectives.

VII. Conclusion

John's ethnically Jewish Christian community was in danger of withering away. The messiah had gone to heaven and not returned, even though decades passed. Was Jesus really the messiah? How can you defend your faith to regular Jewish relatives and friends? Community members were under the "carrot and stick" pressure, both economic and social, from the larger Jewish community to which they felt they belonged. Survival of the community was at stake. Jesus the messiah was at the heart of the community, the reason for its existence, the truth on which it was founded.

John presents a portrait of Jesus as he was circa 90 AD, the time the gospel was written, the time the community was experiencing crisis. This is a portrait of the Jesus to whom the community must be in relationship to whom it must remain loyal, the risen messiah, God's anointed agent and crowned king, ruling over God's kingdom. In his earthly ministry Jesus, covered in the first three gospels, Jesus was about the business of establishing God's kingdom, taking authority back from the evil one by living a life of obedience and righteousness. In John, Jesus has already triumphed. He is risen, and he rules over all things in heaven and the kingdom of God on earth,

The risen messiah is divine; he shares many characteristics we associate with God. He is eternal because God has raised him from the dead to live and rule forever. He has the power of God because the Father chooses to rule through His agent, whose will exactly reflects that of the Father. Jesus is so much greater than any historical or religious figure because he has fulfilled God's plan for salvation of the world; the evil one has been judged, people can escape the oppression of sin, and all can become children of God. Jesus rules from heaven as God's agent, and he is worthy of worship.

Because the writer has chosen the gospel form to tell his story, to express his narrative theology, time and sequence will inevitably be confused. Jesus in his earthly ministry was not yet the eternal messiah ruling from heaven. Various anachronisms need to be pushed aside so as not to detract from the main point, that Jesus is the messiah, he is risen, and he rules.

In addressing his community's problems circa 90 AD John addressed issues vital to us today. We must know and be loyal to the risen Christ who rules from heaven. We must remain loyal and live in accordance with God's will for us even though Christ's return is delayed. The gospel of John is the foremost gospel for us today, not as a piece of history of what happened circa 30 AD during Jesus' earthly ministry, but as narrative to guide our lives in the present.

I'm reviewing an article, not a book, but it is a long article, an important article, and it will be helpful for me to summarize what I read. Dr. Codevilla is a retired professor from Boston University.

The first half dozen or so paragraphs make the point that America has two classes. In September 2008 the TARP legislation was supported by Republicans, Democrats, and the mainstream media. In response to a financial and credit crisis TARP provided much more government spending, government debt and government control over the economy. 75% to 80% of the public opposed it. TARP was adopted by the combination of society's leaders whom Codevilla calls the "ruling class" on the theory that the matters addressed were "beyond the general public's understanding."

Republican leaders may make a show of partisan opposition to more government, more spending and debt, especially when they are the minority party, but when the chips are down they support more government, more spending and more debt. Republican leaders are very much a part of the ruling class.

In decades past there was great diversity in the country and as a consequence great diversity in Washington political leaders. Today the training of future elites is surprisingly uniform across the country. Our future leaders receive guidance at the right schools, soak up culture from the same entertainment and news sources, and emerge with a shared viewpoint on good and evil, history, sin (against minorities and the environment), saints, right and wrong words, tastes, habits...

Codevilla explains how that shared worldview of the elites differs from the views of most Americans and from our heritage.

I. The Political Divide

The deep division in our national political life is not between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats make up a bit less than 1/3 of the population. They like big government and the leaders who run things. The other 2/3 of the country, when given a choice in polling, falls into "undecided", "none of the above", "tea party" or some other unaffiliated category. Independents and most of the people who (reluctantly) vote Republican do not have real representation in electoral politics.

Badmouthing the political elite, the ruling class, is something a majority of the country engages in. The ruling class has given us an explosion in the size and cost of government, they started wars they proceeded to lose, they have given us a sick economy strangled by debt to the point of national insolvency, stagnant or rising cost of living, tax increases, and they lie and "talk down to the American people."

Codevilla identifies the ruling class and the country class - that substantial majority which is not represented in our current electoral politics.

II. The Ruling Class

Who are the rulers, how did America develop a privileged class, and how do they differ from the rest of us?

The bottom line is they gained and hold power by connecting to an ever bigger government, and by a certain shared attitude. It is helpful to recognize who they are not.

Being in the ruling class is not based on wealth or family social standing because there are wealthy and socially prominent conservatives. The ruling class includes wealthy people, as well as middle class and poor. The key is members of the ruling class depend on government for their careers, their fortunes, and their well-being.

Being in the ruling class is not based on professional achievement. Justice Clarence Thomas and former President George W. Bush will never be accepted. What matters is "comity" that is being with the right people, endorsing or loving what is approved, rejecting or hating what is not, and basically showing you share the manners, tastes and interests of this elite.

Being in the ruling class is not based on intelligence or high academic achievement. Harvard Prof Lawrence Tribe claimed authorship of a book written by his assistant, who plagiarized. For a conservative that would cripple an academic career but two other ruling class insiders, Harvard President Derek Bok and Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan cleared him. On the other hand distinguished scholars who show the flaws in politically correct views are shunned, e.g. MIT's Richard Lindzen and UVA's S. Fred Singer, both of whom have written scholarly articles opposing global warming.

The ruling class claims intellectual superiority based on prestigious institutions they have captured, but with widespread grade inflation in our country they increasingly grant admission to applicants "whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in" to the privileged elite.

III. The Faith

Even though the assumption is baseless, the assumption of intellectual superiority is the key to understanding America's ruling class.

America didn't start that way. Our founders said, "all men are created equal" based on belief that all are created in the image of God, on a desire for equal treatment under British law, and on the ideas of John Locke.

Rejection of the idea of equality has a long history. Early in the 18th Century "science" was the basis of claims of racial differences (with white people being superior). Darwin, with survival of the fittest, was taken to explain why whites ruled. Darwin's theories also implied inferior groups could be "improved" (by superior "improvers"). This powerful idea launched the Progressive Era, with Woodrow Wilson using the power of government to reshape society.

This launch of Progressivism did not go well. There was world war which was a horrific tragedy, failure to build workable institutions to keep the peace, economic hardship, and Prohibition. The American people rejected the idea of supposedly wise leaders reshaping society. The reaction of Progressive leaders was "there's something wrong with the American people."

In the interwar years the cultural divide between the "educated class" and ordinary people widened. The elites had admiration for communist Russia. The Scopes Monkey Trial (over teaching evolution in schools) made Progressives think of ordinary Americans as "willful ignoramuses."

FDR invented the brain trust and brought the elite into government and to power. The elite made the rules and their disdain for common people grew. Academics were teaching courses which equated conservatism with having a personality disorder, and asserting that either a person was a liberal democrat of a latent fascist.

Today this assumption of superiority, and disdain for common people, is deeply ingrained in the ruling class. What ordinary people think or say is irrelevant because they are inferior. We need only listen to Obama telling fellow elitists in San Francisco how common folk cling to their faith and guns.

IV. The Agenda: Power

The ruling class claims moral and intellectual superiority so one might think their agenda would be healing the planet, world peace, equality (of result) for all... but no, the agenda is power, always increasing the power of government, which they control. The means is using patronage, giving money and political benefits to supporters. The more wealth they take from people who earn it, the more they can use to buy support and to enrich themselves. Patronage is the tool, creating dependency is the strategy.

V. Dependency Economics

Total government spending exceeds 1/3 of the economy. By taxing, borrowing and spending at this massive level, the ruling class is the arbiter of who prospers and who bears the economic burdens.

In addition to the level of spending, the market is overruled by unequal treatment. Government "tilts" the playing field. The health care law of 2010 has 2700 pages to specify which states, industries, unions, etc. benefit and which bear the burdens. There are countless boards and commissions which have discretion (i.e. power). "Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit they do not read the laws. They don't have to. Because modern laws are grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is who they empower."

Since economic benefits result from government discretion, political influence not competitiveness, price or quality, is what matters. More and more people are dependent on government. All this teaches Americans that satisfying the elite is a surer way to make a living than producing things people want to buy.

The 2010 health care law shows the modus operandi of the ruling class; tax citizens and force them to pay for health insurance. Use the money for government to provide health services. Use the wide discretion to decide who gets health care, how much of it, and what care they receive. If someone doesn't like what they get, they no longer have the money to seek alternative care, if in fact it is available. The ruling class exercises the power of life and death.

VI. Who Depends on Whom?

The Constitution, if you go by what it says rather than by what ruling class academics and judges say, significantly limits government power and protects the rights of citizens from government infringement. As originally conceived, Americans were really free, making the choices about their own lives without interference from politicians, judges and bureaucrats, and government had to serve the people because voters and their votes really mattered.

Woodrow Wilson, the archetypal elitist, recognized these impediments to the power of the ruling class 125 years ago, in an 1885 article entitled Congressional Government.

So the "perpetual agenda" of the elite is to concentrate power, diminish the impact of votes, enhance the power of political leaders and of groups working with the elite. A major step was to develop the concept of a "living" constitution where ruling class judges eliminate the restrictions on government and make the document "mean" something other than what it says.

One example is in Baker v. Carr (1962) which allows gerrymandering. Congressional districts are drawn so that a single party is dominant in each, incumbents are always reelected, and votes are meaningless.

With individual votes being irrelevant party leaders bring in major organizations to support their agenda. The AMA supported the new health care law in spite of the fact that polls showed an overwhelming majority of doctors opposed it. AMA leaders had multimillion dollar contracts for health care from the government. Each group within the ruling class was scratching the other's back, and to hell with what doctors wanted.

Similarly, in the government's dispute with Arizona over illegal immigration the National Association of Chiefs of Police supported Washington although the vast majority of police chiefs opposed. In their official capacity members of the National Association received millions in federal funds. To hell with what police really think.

Labor unions are tied to the government, with the SEIU being the worst example. The SEIU did not win the ballots of workers in secret elections, they unionized workers by making deals with politicians and they pour money into the campaigns of their political allies.

Today a vast bureaucracy rules many aspects of American life. All manner of rights have been lost, especially equal treatment under law. The whole purpose of our incredibly complex government is to treat people unequally. Sometimes this goal is achieved by incredibly complex laws, like the Internal Revenue Code. The unique power of judges matters greatly too, but mostly unequal treatment is achieved by grants of discretion to bureaucrats.

Today the text of the Constitution means little. "Interstate commerce" has been stretched to justify laws unrelated to commerce. Whole new rights, not mentioned in the Constitution, like the right to privacy, have been invented.

Things have progressed to the point that now the ruling class can dispense with the charade of following the Constitution. When Nancy Pelosi was asked what in the Constitution allows Congress to force people to buy health insurance, she replied "Are you serious?"

VII. Disaggregating and Dispiriting

Up to this point the discussion has been about economic, civil, and political issues. However the highest priority of the ruling class is to change the family and spiritual values of society - the culture war.

To win the culture war; to suppress religious faith, accept all manner of sexual expression, destroy "social prejudices," and to change morals and values, the ruling class must destroy the traditional family. Woodrow Wilson, the great pioneer of progressivism, was a university teacher before he became president. His goal was, "to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible."

The media and academia wage war on the family by positive portrayal of alternative lifestyles and negative images of fathers. No fault divorce diminishes the distinction between cohabitation and marriage. Examples of infidelity by political leaders abound. At one time the military, which greatly values integrity in its leaders, regarded infidelity as evidence of a lack of integrity. They have been massively criticized. The federal government paid women to have children out of wedlock. There has been an explosion of children growing up without a father in the house, and this is great for the ruling class. Unmarried mothers need help, which government provides, so single mothers are the most faithful voters for the Democratic Party.

The ruling class teaches that the relationship between men and women, and with their children, is contingent, while the relationship between children and the state is fundamental. Hilary Clinton and others have written in support of a direct relationship between government and children. Today schools can order pregnancy tests and send girls to abortion clinics without even telling the parents. There is a strong political effort to stop home schooling.

Core issues are at stake. What is the right way to live? What is true, and good? Who decides? It is not parents and not ordinary people who decide. The ruling class knows better.

Unenlightened people believe in God and that we are subject to His laws. They think they can make valid judgments about good and evil, and they can use reason to make sound choices. The ruling class knows faith is a superstition, judgments are subjective, and that "ordinary people can no more be trusted with reason than they can with guns." Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic are valid only if the right people acknowledge them.

The ruling class is adamant that only it has the right to pronounce what "science" determines. When the Virginia attorney general subpoenaed data behind the hockey stick graph which supposedly justified the theory of global warming, he was attacked by the Washington Post and the University of Virginia faculty as making an "assault on reason" and an attack on science - despite the particular research being discredited, there being indications of fraud, the State of Virginia in part funding the research, and billions in political expenditures being based on the research! Science-by-secret-data is not science, nor is science interpreted solely by a segment of society with its own partisan agenda.

By identifying science and reason only with themselves, our rulers delegitimize the opposition. Everything they want to do (wipe out religious faith, destroy the family, etc. etc.) is right, rational and good. All opposition is ignorant, harmful and wrong.

VIII. Meddling and Apologies

Foreign policy is an area where the mindset of our rulers is revealed. Their confidence in the superiority of their intelligence, values and purposes leads them to meddle in the affairs of other countries, because they know better. In his 2005 inaugural speech Bush said America cannot be free until the whole world is free. The statement was false, even foolish but that was his mindset. He could justifiably interfere wherever he choose to bring the blessings of democracy. This is not just a Bush problem or a Republican problem; Dr. Codevilla names four wars, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, two started by Republicans and two by Democrats, and I can think of a fifth, Clinton's war with Serbia. Vital American interests were hardly ever at stake.

To the disgust of our rulers the American people don't want war unless it's really necessary, and then they want to fight to win. Ordinary Americans have a pretty good sense of the classic idea of vital national interest. Since ordinary people don't have the profound insights of the ruling class, the solution for the rulers is to lie and continue to pursue their objectives. Woodrow Wilson told the Europeans he had to have the League of Nations because the American people insisted on it, then he told the American people he had to have it because the Europeans made it a non-negotiable demand. In fact it was the private idea of Wilson and his progressive friends.

It's not just wars where our ruling class meddles in the internal affairs of other countries. Dr. Codevilla does not mention it but Dinesh D'Souza in his book The Enemy At Home (reviewed in this blog site) convincingly documents how our rulers are working hard to destroy families and morality in developing countries, in the name of women's rights.

Our rulers are quick to apologize to foreigners, not for what the rulers have done, but for the views and actions of ordinary Americans. Obama apologizes to Europeans that the US has not met its responsibilities to reduce carbon emissions, even though the American people never assumed such responsibility. Obama apologized for America's use of the atom bomb to end the war with Japan. Bill Clinton apologized to Africans for slavery in the US. Recently an Assistant Secretary of State apologized to China [?] for Arizona's immigration legislation. These apologies make no sense, but they reveal the mindset of the ruling class, namely its contempt for our country and the American people.

IX. The Country Class

The Country Class is Dr. Codevilla's term for ordinary Americans, the not-ruling-class. It is very diverse and hard to define. Both classes include educated and uneducated, successful and not, rich and poor, after all a welfare recipient can be just as enthused about big government as a career politician. Perhaps the best way to differentiate the classes is by their attitudes.

Members of the country class are disgusted with our inept but haughty leaders and reject their programs - ever higher taxes, expanding government, subsidizing political favorites, social engineering, abortion... many but not all strongly favor marriage, family and religious practice.

A business person of the country class wants to prosper by producing goods or services of value, which consumers willingly buy. A business person who identifies with the ruling class looks for government subsidies, political connections, favorable treatment from bureaucrats, and for government to hamper his competition.

A schoolteacher of the country class resents being forced to join a union, opposes the refusal to let parents choose their kids' schools, and wants to be judged by his/her effectiveness in teaching. In the next classroom a schoolteacher of the ruling class strongly supports union activity, rejects accountability for teachers (protecting the incompetent and ineffective), wants to prevent parents from having power over education, and claims most all problems in education can be solved by more taxpayer money.

A country class worker is aghast at how little honest, hard work yields in comparison to political connections to the right bureaucrat. Country class workers value competence, productivity, open resolution of disputes, competitive exams and evaluations, while the political class favors quotas, political connections and political correctness.

The country class strongly rejects the ruling class insistence that ordinary Americans are intellectually and humanly inferior. They want to manage their own lives and resent intrusion. If the ruling class is so smart why have they made such a mess of our country, our society and our lives?

The country class is patriotic while the ruling class wants to impose "world standards" in place of our Constitution and make us more like Europe.

The news media, educational establishment and Hollywood are increasingly being recognized for what they are, propaganda organs of the ruling class. As a result people are turning away, to Fox News and religious broadcasting, to home schooling, and to entertainment sources like Branson and Nashville.

X. Congruent Agendas?

The country class is very diverse with numerous interests and concerns. A small business person, who cannot hire lobbyists, worries about competitive disadvantage against larger firms whose representatives sit "at the table" with bureaucrats when industry standards, products specifications, subsidies, fees, etc. are discussed and regulations developed. All business people worry about interest rates, new statutory rights for unions, rising costs due to subsidies (e.g. ethanol) or large, unpredictable new costs (e.g. Obamacare). Doctors worry about bureaucrats in effect running their practices. And so on. But few can directly influence decisions about these things which so greatly impact their lives.

Local government is no longer able to respond to the will of the people. If parents want to influence the school board to improve education they soon find federal and state regulations and subsidies with strings attached prevent local decision-making. Ordinary workers are becoming aware that government employees make more money, have much better benefits, face less risk of unemployment, and yet produce far less value for the economy.

People who care greatly about the traditional family encounter all sorts of problems, some subtle, some not; married people face tax penalties, divorce is at the same time easy to get but also terribly costly and a nightmare experience (why get married?)... if you have clear ideas about raising your kids the school still goes ahead with its own agenda regarding sex education and abortion. People of religious faith feel persecuted. Thank God no one is being fed to the lions these days, but believers are second class citizens. Government grows, government power expands, public life is taking over every aspect of life, and religion is being systematically excluded from public life. Our community leaders cannot even mention Christmas at Christmastime without fear of lawsuits. The ruling class has a de facto policy of "aggressive, intolerant secularism."

Ordinary people with their various concerns are beginning to see there is one source for their problems, the ruling class, using government as its instrument.

XI. The Class Clash

Dr. Codevilla does not see the conflict being resolved soon or easily. The ruling class wants ever-increasing power, deference and perks. The country class wants to curtail their power, reduce their perks, and as far as deference, they believe our rulers are inept, corrupt, and malevolent. The rulers want the rest of us to shut up and obey them. Ordinary people want self-government and freedom from government oppression.

Compromise is unlikely and the outcome uncertain. The ruling class has a number of strong advantages. They are in the habit or ruling, the country is used to them being in positions of authority, they have the prestigious credentials, they have the sources of information and opinion in our society - news media, academia, the entertainment industry - on their side, and they have the Democratic Party, an experienced, disciplined vehicle for political power.

Two things the ruling class does not have are numbers; only a third of the population supports them, and their program is unsustainable. Ever increasing taxes, spending and debt is not a viable long term program.

The country class has serious weaknesses. It's disorganized, it has no political vehicle to express its wishes (the role of the Republican Party is uncertain), it is not in the habit of exercising power and leadership, and it has been routinely disparaged and ridiculed for decades by the propaganda organs of the ruling class.

What the country class has going for it is a majority of Americans, America's heritage of liberty and limited government, and people's basic desire for self-government, freedom, and to take responsibility for their own lives.

Dr. Codevilla counsels that for the American people to win, first their leaders must "attack the ruling class's fundamental claims to superior intellect and morality in ways that dispirit the target and hearten one's own." Priority 1 is fighting for our ideals in the battleground of public opinion.

Our genes, our DNA, contain information about our ancestry, about our differences from others and our relatedness to them. If enough of this information from many, many individuals in geographically dispersed areas is analyzed together we can learn a great deal about the development and migrations of our species.

Spencer Wells is both a solid scientist and a great promoter, a guy who could sell swamp land in Florida. He is using his skills to generate wide recognition and enthusiasm for the Genographic Project and the National Geographic Society.

The genographic project essentially involves taking chromosome samples (by swabbing the inside of the cheek) from thousands of people all over the world, then comparing and analyzing. The particular chromosomes which are analyzed are the mitochondria, which are passed on only from mother to children, and the Y which is passed on only from father to sons. These two types of chromosomes are not mixed and matched with chromosomes from both parents which happens at conception with all the other chromosomes. Because of that, they are passed on intact and any changes observed between the chromosomes of two people are due to mutations occurring infrequently over a number of generations.

These mutations can tell us roughly how many generations ago two individuals shared the same ancestor. Also, by looking at larger populations and where the mutations are most prevalent, we can make well-informed guesses of the region of the world where that ancestor lived. I don't want to say a lot more. For an explanation of the science, read the book.

The book gives some intriguing hints about our past, and what follows is my guessing: Modern humans developed roughly 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. They were doing okay until a catastrophe occurred, the eruption of the Toba volcano in Sumatra around 73,000 years ago, +/- 4000 years. Toba was so big it had a massive effect on life on earth, even in Africa. Humans died off so only perhaps a couple thousand survived. It turned out the survivors were smarter than average, ready to make the most of their environment when a better climate returned.

65,000 years ago humans were hunter-gatherers. They had two "economic systems" for getting food. One was on the savannah, hunting on the grasslands. The other was collecting seafood on the ocean shore. 60,000 years ago, give or take, the seafood gatherers followed the shoreline from the horn of Africa across Arabia, India, etc. all the way to Australia. People have been in Australia a long time, 50,000 years give or take.

The grassland hunters stayed in Africa until climate change made the Sahara grassy, then some of them moved north and east, out of Africa across Sinai. This was about 40,000 years ago. They occupied all the grassland available, which took them well into central Asia perhaps as far as Mongolia. There were also grasslands in Europe and they moved west. The story of how long they stayed in central Asia before moving into China and Europe is not covered in the book. Climate may have forced them to stay in central Asia for thousands of years, but to retreat to higher ground to find sufficient water. In due course they spread out from central Asia, peopling Europe and mixing with descendants of the seafood gatherers as they moved east and south throughout Asia.

This book was written only two years into the project. Now in 2010 there is a lot more data available. I hope the author publishes more results of the genographic project soon.

The gospel goes beyond what is offered in the other three gospels. Its Christology is much "higher" that is to say Jesus is portrayed to a greater degree with characteristics of divinity. The gospel of John does not contain the words "Trinity" or "godhead" or the phrase "God in three persons" nor does it say the crucifixion "paid for" our sins. Nevertheless it contains statements such as Jesus saying, "before Abraham was, I am" (Chapter 8 verse 58); also the disciple Thomas, speaking to Jesus, says "My Lord and my God!" (20:28); and there are a number of other verses which indicate Jesus' divinity. The book goes far enough beyond the other three gospels that it can be considered a milestone on the church's journey to develop doctrines such as the Trinity.

Using the tools of modern Bible scholarship, what can we say about theological truths expressed in John? First let me discuss broad explanations for John having a "higher" Christology than the other 3 gospels. There could be a number of reasons but I will look at two widely accepted ones then my own.

I. Explaining the High Christology

A. The first explanation is the text means what it says and conveys the plain meaning of the words to anyone who is reading. If the prologue equates Jesus with the Word and says the Word was God, then Jesus is God. End of story. The details of explaining how a flesh and blood human being can also be the God who created the universe can be left to church theologians to explain at a later date.

Such a straightforward approach has the virtue of faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6) so this approach starts out on the right foot. Having said that, this approach needs to be used with some caution because the text is coming to us across 20 centuries, from perhaps 8000 miles away, written in a different and ancient language, from a very different culture.

You might argue the Holy Spirit dictated this text, and the Holy Spirit is fully capable of transcending time, distance and so forth. My view is the text resulted from an interplay between the Spirit who inspired it and a human who expressed what the Spirit placed in his heart. To be sure we understand a text one of the things we need is understanding of the human element in the process.

Scholars who are committed to the inerrancy of scripture (a shorthand way of saying, it means what it says and says what it means, and the plain meaning is the meaning) still take a number of steps to be confident of their understanding. There are many things all scholars, even inerrantists, take care about, for example getting the best text, the closest to the original words. Another is making the best translation. For example, John evidently was written in the kind of Greek that was in common use during the 1st Century. I am told the meaning of the Greek phrase in verse 1:1 which our Bibles translate "and the Word was God" is actually "and the Word was of the same nature as God." [I can't prove it myself but two different seminary professors have said that.]

Context is vital. Even the most conservative scholars insist on this. You can find a statement in the Bible, "there is no God" (Psalm 14:1) but be sure to get the context: "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'." Context can involve a lot - a verse, a passage, a chapter, even a whole book. It may refer to the type of literature; poetry, prose, prophecy, history... For example Hebrew poetry often uses synonyms for the sake of style. Psalm 91 starts off referring to "the Most High", "the Almighty" and "the LORD". They all refer to God and you need to be cautious if you want to make a big deal out of the differences.

Context certainly includes the historical setting. Jeremiah was written (mostly) during a time of grave international crisis and threats to the existence of the state of Judah. Ezekiel was written during the Babylonian exile. We know something about the historical setting from the text of these books themselves but we also learn a lot from other books of the Bible, other historical sources, and archeology. With New Testament books it is very helpful to understand the life setting, the circumstances of the community for which the book was written. As much as we would like to think each book was written for us, originally it was written (at least in the mind of the human author) to address the concerns, questions and needs of his / her specific community.

So while I agree the Bible is truth and the text means what it says, I do not assume a text means whatever strikes me as obvious, as a 21st Century American reading a passage in English.

B. A second explanation for the high Christology of John has a different starting point. The second explanation comes from the academic study of comparative religion. Christianity is compared with other religions who have a founder or key early leader, such Judaism (Moses), Islam (Mohammad), and Buddhism (Buddha). They all have stories showing the founder performing miracles and becoming in some sense supernatural. Comparative religion assumes the founder started out as a relatively normal person, but his reputation grew into the realm of the mystical. This increasing exaltation of a religious founder over time is a process that is part of the normal development of any religion. The supposed divinity or other exalted traits of a founder are the result of predictable sociological forces and there is no need to concern oneself with any underlying reality of what is being described. The implication is if you actually believe the stories you are credulous and unsophisticated.

The comparative religion approach is great if you want to feel sophisticated and skeptical about things relatively uneducated people believe. The problem with it, at least in my view, is it does not grapple with the text. Other than taking note, in a very general way, of the higher Christology in the gospel of John, it does not attempt to understand and explain what is going on in the gospel; what issues were of vital importance to the writer and the community, and the answers the gospel text gives to the questions those issues raise.

C. The third approach, which I like and I use below, is not original with me. The approach is to understand the vital issues of the community which the human author was addressing, then to examine the higher Christology in terms of how it contributes to the author's objectives. (I also use the approach to deal with other questions I have of the text.)

I was first exposed to this approach in a class on the gospel of Mark taught by Prof. Ron Allen at Christian Theological Seminary. Instead of starting at the beginning of Chapter 1, Prof. Allen first explained major theological issues for Jews at the time of Christ, then began In Mark chapter 13, which talks about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and all sorts of difficult trials that were coming.

What Prof. Allen was doing was giving us an understanding of the concerns and vital issues of the Markan community, the issues the human author was inspired to address in the gospel. They were shocked by the destruction of the Temple. All their hardships caused consternation because Jesus was the Messiah and he was expected to return in triumph at any moment. The community needed reassurance and understanding.

Prof. Allen's approach was to give us context for the overall gospel, not just any single passage. It is a challenge to do this. Just as gospel writers didn't sign their name to their book, they did not begin with a statement "Here's the problem I'm going to address, and here's how I'll do it." [Well, maybe Luke does that to some extent.] The careful reader has to piece together clues to understand the community the gospel was originally written for, and what were their issues and concerns.

So before I mine the text for answers to my questions, I am going to try to figure out what kind of community the gospel was written to / for, their time and circumstances, their ethnicity and background, threats and problems they faced, their major concerns, and so forth. I will look at general knowledge about the text (for example John is believed to be the last gospel written), things the author assumes his audience already knows about (they're generally familiar with Jerusalem and Jewish customs), differences from the other 3 gospels (in the other 3 Jesus has problems with Pharisees and lawyers, in John his problems are with "the Jews"), and so on.

The basic idea is that the message of the gospel, the truths expressed in the gospel, are first and foremost intended to address particular concerns and problems the community was facing - not to express universal and timeless truths. Before we conclude anything about the universal and timeless, we must understand the specific message to a particular time, place, and group of people.

II. 20th Century Bible Scholarship

At this point most readers must be thinking, why bother with this third approach? Surely you can find the meaning of the text without all this searching for the life setting of the original community, the big issues they cared about, and so on. The gospels are histories of Jesus' ministry and records of his teaching. Don't go off on some tangent.

A. The Woman Who Anointed Jesus

I think there is more going on in the gospels than a history of Jesus' ministry and a record of his statements. Consider for example the woman who anointed Jesus. The story is found in all four gospels; Matt 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 7:36-50, and John 12:1-8. If you've read the gospels you remember the general outline of the story; a woman anoints Jesus with expensive ointment and with her tears, people nearby condemn her, but Jesus defends her and her actions.

If you look at the story really carefully, questions arise. At first it seems it is the same story told four times. Jesus is in Bethany (Matthew, Mark & John say so, Luke is silent on which town). There is an "alabaster flask" (per Matt, Mark & Luke) with "very expensive ointment" (per Matt, Mark & John) which we learn later in the story is worth 300 denarii (again Matt, Mark & John). The woman is rebuked by the disciples (Matt & Mark) and John tells us the specific disciple, namely Judas. Three of the stories end up with Jesus saying something to the effect, "the poor you will always have with you" (Matt, Mark & John).

You may have noticed Luke is often the odd gospel out. It is pretty different; the event occurs early in Jesus' ministry whereas in the other gospels it is a short time before the crucifixion. Uniquely, it takes place in a Pharisee's house, and it is various Pharisees rather than the disciples who rebuke the woman. Only in Luke Jesus tells a short parable, or asks a long question, regarding forgiveness (in verses 41-43), and only Luke portrays Jesus forgiving the woman of her sins.

Is Luke describing a completely separate incident? If you say so that preserves the inerrancy of the Bible because different, although similar, events would be described differently. But the similarities then are a little troubling, such as the overall flow of the story, and similar vocabulary, phrasing, and detail such as the alabaster flask of ointment (also in Matt & Mark), and the woman wiping the feet of Jesus with her hair (also in John).

To preserve inerrancy we now have two events, the one in Luke and the one the three other gospels describe. But are the other three all consistent? Matthew and Mark place the event in the house of Simon the leper, but John describes it in the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Mary is the woman who does the anointing and she anoints the feet of Jesus, not his head. You could say John is just more specific than Matt and Mark, describing Judas as the one who objects rather than "the disciples" but the difference in location is problematical. Should we again say there were two anointing events to add to the one in Luke? If so, the many similarities between Matt and Mark, on the one hand and John on the other, are troubling.

If you stick to your initial assumption that the text of the Bible is an accurate recording of events and words, and descriptions of the same event must be consistent, then you end up with the counter-intuitive situation of women anointing Jesus three times. It's possible but problematical.

B. Synopsis of the Four Gospels

20th Century scholarship looked very, very closely at the Bible. One pair of German scholars, Kurt Aland and his wife Barbara, produced a book entitled Synopsis of the Four Gospels. They took the entire texts of all four gospels and put passages side by side, in columns, wherever the texts seemed to describe the same events. When you open their book the page on the right has the text in German while the page on the left has the same text in Greek. The Greek has many, many notations so other scholars can see what the Alands thought was the most authoritative ancient text but the scholars can compare with other texts to form their own opinion.

Fortunately you can buy The Synopsis of the Four Gospels in English (or English and Greek if you're scholarly). It is available fairly inexpensively from the American Bible Society.

I am not an expert page flipper; what I wrote above about the woman who anointed Jesus came from reading a couple pages in Aland's book. If you study the book, and scholars do because it is a great tool, the kinds of issues I describe jump out at you again and again. Similarities in narrative, vocabulary and phrasing convince you stories are indeed related, but differences in detail convince you the main point is not a precise recording of events.

You are likely to come to the same conclusion I did, that most stories in the gospels have a point and truth is found in the point made rather than in precise details which are peripheral to the point. In general I call this narrative theology, where telling a story makes a valid point about Jesus and his purposes. For example, in the story about this anointing, Luke seems to want to express disapproval of self-righteousness and to say much can be forgiven if you turn to Jesus and humbly take him as your lord.

Perhaps John is making a point that followers of Jesus have close interpersonal connections and in a sense make a new family relationship. I'm not sure; knowing more about the overall purposes of this gospel would help me be more confident about the lessons of this passage.

The Synopsis of the Four Gospels and the story of the woman who anointed Jesus is just one example of how modern scholarship gives greater insight and new perspective on scripture. I hope to give more below. For now, I want to develop a sense of John's community and its concerns.

III. Uniqueness of the gospel of John and the community for which it was written

Much of what I will say in the rest of this blog results from a superb class on John taught by Prof. Holly Hearon at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.

Developing an idea of what the gospel is generally trying to express is a repeated, iterative process where you take passages and pieces of information, construct a theory of what Is "going on" in the book, then test it against the text to see if your theory is viable, and modify your theory as needed. First I'll try to identify a few facts.

A. One thing we're pretty sure about is John was the last gospel written. Estimates are it was written 60 to 70 years after the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. As time passed Christians had a troubling question, why had Christ not yet returned? Christianity was rooted in the Jewish expectation that God would send an anointed one, the messiah, to conquer evil and establish God's rule. Jesus was that agent of God. It was hard to understand why he didn't establish the rule of God over the world in his original ministry. After the resurrection it was expected he would come soon to complete his work. As time went on and Jesus did not return, that too was hard to understand.

This Jewish expectation of the reign of God to be established by the messiah was captured in the phrase Jesus used to describe his ministry, "the kingdom of God." If you look at the other three gospels, when Jesus launches his ministry he proclaims the kingdom of God. See Matthew 4:12-17, Mark 1:14-15 and Luke 4:43. The kingdom of God involved an expectation that everything would change, that evil would be vanquished, the enemies of God would be subdued, and God's designated agent, the messiah, would rule with unchallenged authority.

That was not happening. The communities for whom the other gospels were written, particularly Matthew and Mark, evidently could be satisfied with the hope that Christ would return soon, even though none could know in advance God's timing. For John's community too much time had passed and more of an explanation was needed. That is the perspective from which I discuss John's treatment of the kingdom of God theme in John chapter 3 [later in this blog], and its implications for John's whole message.

B. John's community seems to have been ethnically Jewish but familiar with Hellenistic culture, probably situated outside the holy land in a primarily Greek-speaking area. Readers are assumed to be familiar with the general geography and customs of the Jewish homeland, such as "the Jordan where John was baptizing" (1:28) or references to the Passover and the Temple (2:13-14). Hebrew words, which show up as place names, are translated into Greek for the benefit of the reader. See John 5:2, 19:13 & 19:17. The community did not know Hebrew, even place names which people living in proximity to those places would surely have known.

One piece of early church writing puts John's community in Ephesus. Polycarp, a prominent early church leader in the 2d Century, when he was a young man knew a number of disciples, people who followed Jesus during his ministry. Polycarp saw John the disciple in Ephesus, when John was an old man. Unfortunately Polycarp didn't write this down. The record was made by Irenaeus, a bishop active two generations later, who was describing a conversation with a Roman pope who spoke with Polycarp earlier.

Ephesus was a port city on the Aegean Sea in Asia Minor, what is now Turkey. Twenty centuries ago it was in the heart of a large Greek-speaking region, and part of the Roman Empire.

At the start Christianity was a Jewish "denomination" so it's not surprising the community was mostly Jewish. Evidence for this is found in the text itself. The gospel starts, "In the beginning..." which immediately brings to mind the beginning of Genesis. In the 1st Century gentiles were not familiar with Jewish scriptures. The first few verses talk about the word of God, and you will recall Genesis chapter 1 where God repeatedly speaks his creation into existence.

The content of the text makes it plausible that John's community was Greek-speaking and influenced by Greek culture. To the best of anyone's knowledge the gospel itself was originally written in Greek. The Prologue, John 1:1-11, talks about the logos, Greek for "the word". Of course that resonated with Jews familiar with the beginning of Genesis where God speaks and creation occurs, but it also had powerful symbolism from Greek philosophy. Stoicism was a popular philosophy in the Hellenistic world and the Roman empire. It had great prestige. One of its tenets was that universal reason, for which stoics used the word logos, pervades and animates the universe. In addition Jews themselves developed philosophy in the Greek manner. Philo, a thoroughly Hellenized Jewish philosopher living in Alexandria at about the time of Christ, and writing in Greek, reasoned that there was a logos that bridged the enormous gap between God and the world.

So if you were an ethnic Jew immersed in Greek culture, John's prologue with its discussion of the logos resonated on many levels. John - I believe - wanted the reader to respond emotionally (because the ideas are not exactly consistent if you get picky about it) to the sense that Jesus is incredibly important on many levels, as an agent in creation, as an intermediary between God and the world, and as a forceful organizing principle of universal reason.

C. Some parts of the gospel of John are quite different from anything else in the New Testament. Those passages can give insight into John's community. Chapters 14 - 17 are unique. When I page through the Synopsis of the Four Gospels most of the pages have text in at least two of the four columns, that is, most passages found in one of the four gospels have some similar material in at least one of the other gospels. Not so with this final discourse and prayer by Jesus at the last supper.

There are three chapters of discourse and one of prayer. In the discourse Jesus interweaves three general themes; do not be distressed that Jesus has gone away and not yet returned, understand how to live in these times by staying very close to Jesus and loving one another, and be warned that trials will come. The prayer is that the Father would protect Jesus' followers from the evil one, and for their sanctification.

To counter being distressed Jesus says, "Do not let your hearts be troubled" (14:1) because he goes to prepare a place for them. Jesus also says, "I will not leave you orphaned" (14:15) because he is going to send the Holy Spirit / the advocate / the spirit of truth to be with them. Jesus says, "Peace I leave with you" (14:27). He further says it is to the disciples' advantage that Jesus goes away, so that he can send the advocate to them (16:7) and this spirit of truth will guide them (16:13). Jesus further reassures them that they will have joy and "if you ask anything of the Father in my name he will give it to you" (16:23).

To understand how to live in the interim before Jesus returns, Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (14:6). The path to heaven is not a literal path at all but a way of living, with Jesus at the center. "If you love me you will keep my commandments" (14:15). This would seem to require Jesus' followers to live perfect lives but in fact the chief commandment is "to love one another" which is said repeatedly in these chapters. In addition Jesus will be present with his people and they will see him even though the rest of the world cannot. Verses 14:19-23 say this and the meaning is ambiguous to me, but evidently Jesus will be present spiritually in the lives of Christians so they will be aware of him.

Perhaps the most famous instruction on how to live is found in 15:1-10, with the key phrase, "Abide in me and I will abide in you..." (15:6). Followers will have a personal relationship with the risen Christ, and they must be connected with him as a branch to the trunk of a vine.

The idea in chapter 14 that followers will see Jesus is picked up again in chapter 16, verses 16-24. Jesus' followers will weep when he is crucified but they will have joy in his spiritual presence after he "goes to the father."

To warn his followers Jesus says, "If the world hates you, be aware it hated me before it hated you" (15:18) and "If they persecuted me they will persecute you" (15:20). 16:1-4 has a series of warnings; "they will put you out of the synagogues" ... "an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God" ... and "when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them." And see 16:33 "In the world you will face persecution. But take courage. I have conquered the world." Jesus foresees the community's circumstances, and John's community is in great distress.

I have a couple observations about these three chapters of discourse. First, the author has a very different way of making his points from me. I have tried to organize this blog entry in logical sequence, with a numbered outline, arguing one point fully before going on to the next. The gospel of John makes the same points repeatedly, in slightly different ways and in slightly different contexts, spread through a discourse covering several other topics as well. You might say I try to proceed in a straight line to the conclusion while the gospel of John loops around and around trying to draw the reader (or listener) close, causing the reader to agree not through force of logic but through repetition, through drawing the reader in to share the point of view. It is a different way of making an argument, trying to persuade emotionally rather than by logic.

Secondly, John can be pretty vague. I would go so far as to say he is comfortable with vague and imprecise. "I am the way, the truth and the life" (14:6). I guess that means following Jesus and doing his will is the way to live, but whole books could be written on what it might mean. Consider: "I will not leave you orphaned. I am coming to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you" (14:18-20). Huh? I don't think John is talking about the second coming, but about the Christian life when Jesus is in heaven before he returns. This is hard to pin down. My guess is that John is trying to make an emotional impact with his words and he is trying to describe life led by the holy spirit, which is understandable only to those who have experienced it. These are only two examples of many passages which are less than clear to me.

Chapter 17 is a long prayer for protection (17:11) specifically protection from the evil one (17:15). But the protection has a purpose, and it is not to prevent hardship or pain, hunger or disease, death or persecution, or any of the things I would fear. Rather it is a prayer to protect the disciples from falling away, from being separated from the community of people following Christ. Verse 11 is a prayer for protection "so that they may be one as we are one."

Jesus prays "not only on behalf of these [referring to the disciples with him at the last supper] but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that all may be one..." (17:20-21). This is the only place I know in the four gospels which directly addresses the needs of Christians generations after the resurrection.

I think these four chapters, especially the concluding prayer, expose the core issues John's community was facing. They were struggling with the long delay in Jesus' return. They had to invent (or rather, be inspired by the spirit to understand) what Christianity should look like when the delay in Christ's return went on for generation after generation. But the challenge was not primarily theological; they faced hardships, they were persecuted, they were a small group in a much larger society (in fact a minority within a minority, a sect within Judaism). The great challenge was to keep the community together, to keep any members from being "lost." The response to the challenge was to tighten the bonds of community, to love one another, and to "be one" with the Father, with Christ, and with one another.

D. John's community was in great distress. I know the early church was persecuted, and my initial assumption regarding John's community was the Romans were the persecutors. But an internet search of the history of persecution indicates the Romans did not engage in major campaigns of persecution until the mid 2d Century. There was one episode in 64 - 68 AD in Rome. Emperor Nero was rumored to have caused a terrible, destructive fire. To deflect suspicion he blamed a convenient scapegoat, the Christians. That persecution was limited in time and geography. John's community was living around 90 AD, far from Rome. So who was doing the persecuting?

The Book of Acts gives clues. In Acts 8:3 it tells of Saul of Tarsus (at the time a zealous Jew although he later converted) dragging off Christians to prison. In 9:1-2 Saul obtains letters from the high priests giving him authority to go to Damascus and bring back (Jewish) Christians as prisoners. I think of this as a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in the discourse, that people who persecute Christians will think they are serving God (16:2 & f). But the actions of Saul / Paul come too early, by something like 40 or 50 years, to be what John's community was worried about.

It is interesting that the high priest in Jerusalem had authority over Jews in Damascus, in a separate province from Judea, all within the Roman Empire. The Romans dealt with their non-Roman subjects not as individuals but as members of established groups. The Romans interacted with the leaders, and the leaders were expected to keep their people in line.

Acts 18:12-17 tells us more. Paul was in Greece teaching, as was his habit, first in the synagogues, then to others. The local Jewish leaders dragged Paul before Gallio the proconsel. a high Roman official, accusing Paul of "persuading people to worship God in ways contrary to the law". Gallio threw them out of court. He refused to get involved in a dispute between Jews about religion. The story is an indication of Jewish desire not just to reject Christianity but to reject Christians, that is to treat them as if they were not truly Jews and even to drag them into pagan courts.

In this case the Roman attitude worked to Paul's advantage, but there was a potential for big problems. If Romans eventually thought Christians were not part of Judaism, then the Christians were a sect without status or recognition, a group that had no place within the Roman scheme of things, a group subject to suspicion and official disapproval. As a naive American I used to think, why would Romans be worried about a new religious group? Religion and politics are miles apart. Osama bin Laden has shown me that is not the case. Romans had good reason to worry about new religious movements.

These passages in Acts point to an additional danger for communities of ethnically Jewish Christians. If the rest of the secular community thought of them as Jews, but the Jews didn't accept them, that had big consequences in real life. Jewish community leaders could decide whether or not you could do business, practice your profession, where you could live... all sorts of things that affected your everyday life. If you were banned by the community leaders it could even sever relationships with family and restrict who you could marry. Jewish elders decided on a great many things and in the Roman system, everybody else backed them up. An ethnic Jew who was "no longer" Jewish could be virtually alone, have zero status in society, and a tough time making a living.

There is a word which appears 3 times in John but nowhere else in the New Testament, aposynagogos [my transliteration] (see 9:22 , 14:42 , 16:2), which is translated being thrown "out of the synagogue." Perhaps it's something like excommunication in the medieval church. Evidently John's community was facing severe problems because of rejection and antipathy on the part of Jewish community leaders.

If you consider this situation for a moment you can see the complex pressures members of John's community were under. Members faced powerful "carrot and stick" incentives. The "stick" was all the difficulties being in a disapproved, unaccepted sect entailed. The "carrot" was, if you returned to standard Judaism all your problems went away.

At this point you may be thinking, "what terrible people those Jews were," but in fact the Jews were doing what any established group does with heretics and members who refuse to accept the established leadership; they throw them out, and appeal to some to return to the fold. This is not unusual. The strident anti-Jewish rhetoric in John is due to the very strong threat the "carrot and stick" pressure posed to John's community and its ability to retain its members.

E. Literary studies provide insight

Looking closely at discourse and vocabulary can give insight into the purposes of the author and the mindset of the Johannine community. In chapter 6 Jesus is talking to a large crowd and describes himself as the bread of life (6:35). He adds that he "came down from heaven" (6:38). "The Jews" who are in the crowd express doubt (6:42) and Jesus' response is confrontational, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (6:51). In following verses he reinforces the point about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Many disciples turned away and stopped following him.

Only later with the remaining disciples did Jesus explain that he was talking about spiritual things, not literal flesh (6:63). It seems that Jesus was perfectly comfortable letting the Jews, and even his own disciples somewhat on the periphery, misunderstand him and reject him in disgust. It occurs to me the Johannine community perceived itself (and the Christ they worshiped) to be misunderstood and wrongly judged, and that it was fruitless to explain the truth to skeptics outside the community.

Another thing about the gospel text is there are a great number of opposites and dichotomies: light / darkness (1:4-5 , 3:19-21 etc.), children of God / your father the devil , flesh / spirit (3:6 , 6:63 etc.), heavenly things / earthly things (3:12), saved / condemned & judged (3:17), one who comes from heaven / one who is of the earth (3:31), resurrection of life / resurrection of condemnation (5:29), bread of life / food that perishes (6:27 vs 35), light of life / walk in darkness (8:12)... I could go on.

The author paints a picture of a world of stark choices , the most important one being to remain loyal to Jesus (and the community) or to fall away.

Words take on special meanings in John. "Bread" means something spiritual, something providing essential daily sustenance yet intangible. Light and darkness are not descriptions of ambient light levels but rather the condition of having the correct or incorrect viewpoint on the lordship of Jesus Christ and other issues vital to the community. The word "life" becomes imbued with new meaning, indicating something more than metabolic process, meaning living the right way, the most meaningful way, living in harmony with God with Christ as your lord. In the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (chapter 4) water takes on symbolic meaning, and it is up to the woman to grasp the meaning. Many common, everyday words take on special meaning.

These words with new meanings - life, bread, water, etc. - often deal with the same reality, the need to follow Jesus, to put him first, and to belong to the community of Jesus-followers.

Another feature of John is that, more than the other gospels, it emphasizes the interpersonal. Many passages begin with a one-on-one encounter, such as Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus and the woman at the well. The story of the woman who washes Jesus' feet, told in all four gospels, in John is depicted almost as a family setting, with Jesus visiting his very close friends Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Yet people outside the community are faceless, part of a mass, such as "the Jews".

One of the outside readings in the class I took on John was Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John by Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. In chapter 2 pages 46-48 they review these various characteristics - many words for the same reality, words filled with new meanings, emphasis on the interpersonal, social contrast with the out group - and identify the gospel as an example of a document written in an "anti-language" for an "anti-society."

The authors have encountered other literature with these features. Literature of this type is written by/for a small, tightly knit community struggling to survive in a hostile social environment. John is exactly the sort of text written for a close knit group which exists in opposition to the dominant society.

The purpose of literature of this type is survival of the community by means of strengthening the connections that hold the small community together. Focus is on the interpersonal, to facilitate interpersonal bonding. In John becoming "children of God" means developing kinship-like loyalties to God, Jesus and the group members. Mutual trust, a shared view of the world, and group loyalty are essential for such communities. In comparison, ideological propositions, statements of doctrine and academic truths are insignificant. It is not a significant purpose of the literature to express such propositions, doctrines and truths.

I'll mention one more insight from literature, from the book Literary Form in the New Testament: A Handbook by James L. Bailey and Lyle D. VanderBroek, pages 172-177 on "Johannine Discourse." Repeatedly when Jesus talks in John he makes long statements to reveal some profound point about his divine nature and mission. He often begins with, "truly I tell you," and he frequently uses the introductory phrase "I am..." which to Jews had an echo of the divine name (see Exodus 3). Jesus the speaker is explicitly aware of his divine status.

This literary form is unique in the New Testament. The other gospels generally (there are exceptions) present Jesus as speaking of the things of God rather than focused on himself. In Matthew he is portrayed as a prophet like Moses only greater, teaching about righteousness and fulfillment of the law. In Mark Jesus is a man of action, rarely quoted although it is noted he speaks with authority and not as one of the scribes. In Luke Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God, and focuses on God rather than himself. It is rare in the other gospels for Jesus to say something that expresses a claim to his own divinity.

In John we find Jesus saying things like, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever..." (John 6:51). "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life (8:12). In response to Jewish leaders he said, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am" (8:58). And so on.

The authors of Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook say regarding Johannine discourse, "The Johannine gospel offers far more profound levels of truth than simply a historical factual one." That's a nice academic way of saying they don't think many of the quotes and to a degree even the stories in John are factual, but rather the author is using what was by 90 AD (thereabouts) a well-established narrative literary form, the gospel form, to express ideas and arguments.

People of faith may reject that position, but what if biblical truth lies in the points made rather than the factual details recited? The gospel of John is urgently trying to persuade people to stay loyal to Jesus and stay within the Christian community. Why not present Jesus in his majesty, as the risen Lord, crowned by God to rule over the kingdom? It was anachronistic of the author to portray Jesus during his ministry as the Jesus of 90 AD who ruled from heaven. Yet the risen Jesus of 90 AD is exactly who the followers needed to stay loyal to.

IV. Theology

Now I can start looking at the ideas and doctrines in John, although in fact the gospel is not concerned about the great theological issues for which the church finds support in John, like the trinity. John is concerned about holding the community together, and the ideas expressed in John are offered to encourage members to stay in the fold.

A. John responds to the Jewish arguments

John must respond to the Jewish appeal which calls on members of John's community to return to Judaism, to return to the faith of their fathers, to Moses, the law and the prophets, to the patriarchs, to a faith which had been centered on the temple in Jerusalem and a faith buttressed by numerous time-honored rites and practices.

The gospel does not argue against such things but instead insists Jesus offers something greater, something better.

1. Creation. The God Jews worship as the creator, the one who spoke the world into existence, who existed before there was anything else, is the God whose acts are described at the beginning of Genesis, the very beginning of the scriptures. So the gospel of John also starts with, "In the beginning..." specifically "In the beginning was the word [the logos]..." (John 1:1). In later verses John goes on to equate the word with Jesus. If you, a member of John's community, have been listening to your Jewish relatives and friends discount the importance of Jesus in comparison to the God of the Jews, well, the gospel assures you Jesus was right there with God at creation and God was working through Jesus. Jesus' credentials are unsurpassed.

How can the gospel writer make that assertion with any degree of credibility? I've mentioned previously that the logos evoked in Jewish minds God speaking the world into existence in Genesis 1, and the logos spermatikos of stoic philosophy, and the "word of God" in Philo's philosophy. It is not much of a stretch to imagine logos also corresponding to the notion of wisdom. After all logos is organized, thought-out speech; the Greeks had another word for idle chatter.

Jewish scriptures have extensive wisdom literature. Proverbs 8:22-31 states wisdom existed before anything else was created (8:22), and worked along side God in creation (8:30). Wisdom even speaks in the 1st person, which I take as a poetic technique rather than a claim that wisdom is a person, but nevertheless raising the possibility that wisdom is a being with an independent personality. So the notion of some principle, some system of thought, existing at the start of creation and participating with God in creation was not alien to Jews who knew their scripture. The innovation of John was to equate wisdom, the word, the logos with Jesus. So as Jewish scriptures start with, "In the beginning God..." John finds a way to begin by at least implying if not expressly saying, "In the beginning Jesus..."

2. Moses and the Law. What about comparisons of Jesus with Moses, arguably the greatest figure in Israel's history, who led them out of slavery in Egypt, founded the nation, and gave them the law? John says, "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17). Moses is not disparaged but Jesus offers something even better. To emphasize Jesus' primacy, John says Moses prophesied about Jesus. Early in the gospel when disciples are being gathered, Philip tells Nathaniel, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus..." (1:45).

We also see a comparison showing the superiority of what Jesus offers when Jesus justifies healing on the sabbath, telling the crowd that if Moses allows circumcision on the sabbath, how much better to heal a man's whole body on the sabbath? (See passage 7:19-24.)

3. Jewish rituals and customs. Jesus' first miracle is at the wedding at Cana where he turns water into wine, very good wine (2:1-12). The water Jesus changes is new water which he directs to be put into stone jars used for Jewish rites of purification (2:6). I think this fact is key to understanding the point of the miracle. It is not just that Jesus has the power to change water into wine, but that he can adapt or override Jewish rites and practices to make something incomparably better than what is normally produced or what is expected.

4. The Temple. The next story is about Jesus driving the moneychangers and merchants out of the temple (2:13-25). This action implies an assumption of authority over what happens in the temple and Jesus' awareness that the temple was his father's house. But there is more; in response to Jews objecting to his action Jesus says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (2:19). Jesus was misunderstood but the narrator explains he was speaking of the temple of his body (2:21).

The passage is just a few verses but it strikes me there are major claims being made. The temple was not just a building complex or a venue for religious rites. It was the center of religious authority, the office building if you will, of the high priest and religious officials. Ultimately these leaders derived their authority from God. In addition the temple was the dwelling place of God. God is so great he can be anywhere but he chooses to be especially present, to be immanent, in the temple. This was understood literally, for example see 2 Chronicles 5:13-14. When Solomon dedicates the new temple "the house of the LORD was filled with a cloud such that the priests could not stand to minister," and "the glory of the LORD filled the house of God" (5:13-14).

The implications of Jesus' statement are extraordinary. His body was now the temple. He was the center of religious authority derived from God. He was the dwelling place of God, the physical locus in this world where God chose to be present most powerfully, the place where God was immanent. That's a very strong counter position to take against Jewish traditionalists.

On the one hand, throughout the gospel the narrative gives many examples of God's spiritual presence in Jesus. On the other hand in this specific passage the gospel writer says very little to develop these concepts. John offers profound insights but he is not interested in theology as a scholarly pursuit. His focus is on persuading his people to stay in the fold.

5. The Patriarchs. Abraham was the first patriarch. Jews were proud to be children of Abraham and he had enormous prestige. In chapter 8 Jesus argues with "the Jews." Jesus makes a statement, "Whoever keeps my word will never taste death" (8:52). The Jews jump on that, "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?" (8:53) Jesus responds, "Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" (8:56). The Jews scoffed, "You are not 50 years old and you have seen Abraham?" (8:57) To which Jesus responds, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am" (8:58).

This strikes me as a claim that Jesus has a more important role in God's plan for the world than Abraham, that he is of far greater significance than Abraham. Abraham lived at a point in time, Jesus is eternal. Abraham was a great man but he saw something even greater, God's plan and the agent of God's plan for eternity. Jesus is the more important person.

A couple notes in passing; the whole passage (8:39-59) revolves around a discussion of whose father is whom's. The Jews claim Abraham as their father and then "God himself" (8:39, 41). Jesus says their father is the devil (8:41). Jesus makes it clear God is his father (8:49, 54). So in spite of the very strong language (Before Abraham was, I am) Jesus is not claiming to be God but the son of God. Perhaps most Christians don't see a difference in the two claims, but I want to follow the text. Secondly, I think the "before Abraham I am" statement is not primarily a claim about time sequence. From the context the topic is the importance of Jesus, and his role and purpose as the son of God.

As I read I asked myself, what was Jesus referring to in Genesis that caused him to say Abraham saw Jesus' day? When Abraham was first called out of Mesopotamia the call of God included a promise, "in you will all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen 12:3). Perhaps that's what Jesus was referring to.

In conclusion the gospel of John addresses the major pillars of the Jewish faith, Moses and the law, Abraham, the Temple, the rites and practices, and in each case shows Jesus as superior and as offering something superior.

B. The Prologue

The Prologue of John, chapter 1 verses 1-18, is well known, dramatic and much loved. Powerful symbols are woven together; the word, God, light, and life. I have already mentioned how "the word" must have evoked connections, in the minds of community members, to God speaking His creation into existence, to the logos of Greek philosophy, to the word of God in Philo's Jewish philosophy, and to wisdom which was covered extensively in the Jewish scriptures. "Light" is one of those words with special, enhanced meaning for John's community relating to enlightenment, truth and hope, pushing back darkness and evil. "Life", as I hope to demonstrate below, is a primary theme of the gospel, associated not just with respiration but with living as God intended and in relationship with God.

The brief story line is that the word and God jointly create, and the word brings light and life into being. There are a couple of asides relating to John the Baptist (1:6-8, 15-16) who was very prominent about the time of Jesus' early life. The world does not know or accept the word, yet the word brings people the power to become children of God. Finally the gospel makes it clear the word is Jesus, saying "the word became flesh and lived among us" (1:14). He is God's only son, he brings grace and truth, and he makes God known.

One observation is, at least in this passage, the point of Jesus' ministry is to give people the power to become children of God (1:12). Becoming children of God means coming into a close child-parent type relationship with God and a family relationship with God's other children, presumably meaning the community John was writing for. Other New Testament books may be more likely to talk about saving people from judgment or the wrath of God, or from their sins. We may find that message later in this gospel, but John's initial focus is on becoming children of God.

When you read an English translation of the Prologue things are clear; from the beginning Jesus = the word = God. In Greek it is not so clear. There are issues in translation which make it vague exactly at what point you can say Jesus = the word. Ancient Greek differs from modern English in that Greek nouns, articles and pronouns have gender. If you study Spanish, French or German you encounter this grammatical issue. English nouns and articles do not have gender, although many pronouns do.

Looking at the first few verses, "word" is masculine, life is feminine, light is neuter, and darkness is feminine. Every noun in Greek has gender and with the vast majority there is no discernible "sex" associated with the object described. If sex was what grammatical gender was about, virtually all objects would have the neuter gender in Greek, but they do not. A great number of nouns are either masculine or feminine. Furthermore there are three definite articles, one for each gender unlike English which just has "the".

Pronouns too have gender which must agree with the gender of the noun the pronoun refers to. If a pronoun refers back to a noun mentioned earlier in the sentence or paragraph, it will have the same gender as the noun. So a pronoun referring back to a masculine-gender object should be translated "it" in English, even though in Greek the pronoun must have masculine gender. After all, simply because a noun has masculine gender does not necessarily mean it is a male person. Most nouns refer to things, not people.

In the prologue Greek pronouns referring back to the word (the logos) are all masculine in gender. Following the gender, translators translate the masculine pronouns as "he". But in fact "the word" is an "it" because word is a thing, not a person. References back to "the word" should only be translated "he" after the word becomes flesh in verse 14. (Verses 10-13 are ambiguous. Accurate English translation of the pronouns is a bit problematical.)

I have experienced a minister citing the first few verses of John as proof that Jesus is God and as support for the doctrine of the trinity. He had forgotten his Greek classes.

In the Prologue the author is making a powerful claim that Jesus is the embodiment of something that existed with God before creation, that something being God's word, God's plan, God's intended communication, what God was going to bring about in connection with His creative act. But the author of John, at least in Greek, does not claim that Jesus, that is the man, the person, was present at the creation. Only translators to English under the weight of centuries of church theology, do that.

The ambiguity of the text enables John to make a very exalted claim about Jesus and to have an emotional impact on the members of his community. He strengthens their loyalty to Jesus because of Jesus' enormous importance. This is powerful appeal but it is not systematic theology, which is what I'm searching for.

C. The Atonement

Twice in chapter 1 John the Baptist refers to Jesus as "the lamb of God" (1:29, 36) and he says specifically, "Here is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This is unique; John the Baptist is discussed in each of the four gospels but this is the only time the Baptist talks about Jesus being a lamb or taking away sin. The sacrifice of Jesus' life on the cross is at the heart of doctrines of the atonement so it appears the gospel of John will explain this doctrine clearly.

I hope so because explanation is needed. Although a lamb conveys an image of innocence (and Jesus was indeed without sin) there is no particular tradition of lambs being associated with sacrifice for sin any more than any other domestic animal. The Old Testament has hundreds of passages dealing with sacrifice for all sorts of reasons, for sin, for thanksgiving, for the ongoing operation of the temple, on and on. Lambs appear about as often as other animals.

The Day of Atonement is a very high holy day in the Jewish calendar. As set forth in Leviticus 16, after sacrifice of a bull and a goat (but no lamb) the high priest confesses all the sins of the people of Israel over another goat and sends it, the scapegoat, off into the wilderness to carry away the sins of the people. No lamb is used for atonement.

Acts 8, in the story about Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, (8:26-39) suggests one Old Testament passage in which a lamb is in a sacrificial role. The eunuch is reading the suffering servant passage, Isaiah 52:13 - 53:19, which is understood by Christians to be "messianic" that is, a prophecy about the messiah. However the gospel of John gives no indication that the Baptist is referring to Isaiah, nor does any reference to the passage come up elsewhere in the gospel.

It appears the gospel writer has chosen a compelling image, a lamb, for its emotional impact rather than for theological explanation of a doctrine. It turns out in the balance of the gospel that sin and judgment are mentioned roughly 20 times, but always as an aside or just a quick reference. In this gospel Jesus is often quoted at length. He can give a short speech at any time, e.g. in his encounter with Nicodemus (3:10-21) or the Samaritan woman at the well (4:21-26). The gospel writer does not choose to include any speech Jesus may have given on the atonement.

To understand the quick references to sin or judgment, which I will explore, some background is needed. Today you are likely to hear two theories of the atonement depending on the type of church you go to. Conservative churches say we are sinners. It can be explained two ways; our sins create a debt to God which must be repaid, or our sins are crimes and justice requires punishment. In either case we are inadequate to pay for our sins so we need a savior, someone who is so perfect as to have the capacity to pay on our behalf. Jesus is that personal savior, dying on the cross to save each one of us.

In liberal churches Jesus is the first and most prominent martyr to the causes which the liberal churches champion, such as the plight of the poor and disadvantaged, political correctness, socialism, marxism, opposition to racism - you name it, whatever ideologies or issues the pastor is focused on. God and Jesus are drafted to support the agenda of the left.

Historically it is a bit more complicated but still we only have 3 doctrines to explore. A Swedish Lutheran Bishop, Gustaf Aulen, published Christus Victor in 1931. That book explains the 3 theories.

The classical theory or ransom theory has the idea that there is a battle between Jesus and the devil. The devil took power over this world through deceit in the garden of Eden and now is the "ruler of this world" holding all mankind in bondage. As long as people sin they cannot escape from bondage. They need to be ransomed or redeemed. Jesus wants to win our freedom for us. He battles with the devil by refusing to sin, by rejecting temptation, by putting the Father's will above his own even when he faces death. The devil puts Jesus to death and thinks he has won, but God raises Jesus from the dead because Jesus is without sin, and has dramatically proved it. Jesus has superior standing to the devil and all who acknowledge Jesus as their king are freed.

Gustaf Aulen cites a number of early church authorities who support this theory and claims it was the dominant doctrine of the atonement for the first 1000 years of the church. It is the source of the title of his book.

The second theory was put forth about 1099 by Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury in his book, Why Did God Become Man? (Originally in Latin, entitled Cur Deus Homo?, this short book is still available on the internet in English or Latin.) Anselm offers the "satisfaction theory" of the atonement, the idea that God is offended by sin and must be satisfied by sacrifice. Originally sin was not equated with either a debt or a crime, but rather with feudal failure to honor a superior, with breach of loyalty to a lord or king. As feudalism died the theory transitioned smoothly to metaphors of debt and crime, and became the theory used by conservative churches today. The focus is on our personal standing with God and the need to correct our shortcomings. The satisfaction theory is also sometimes called the "objective theory" in contrast to theory #3.

The third theory, the "subjective theory" was proposed by Abelard, a theologian and professor at the University of Paris. Abelard lived about one generation after Anselm. He is most famous for his romance with Heloise, a young teenager whom he was hired to tutor. Abelard and Heloise fell in love, she became pregnant, her guardian was enraged, Abelard was castrated, Heloise became a nun, but they loved each other for the rest of their lives... one of history's famous love stories.

Abelard said Jesus' death was an expression of how much he loved us. Jesus' example should move us all to be more like him. The effect of Jesus' death then is supposed to be subjective, to operate by example to change our hearts and behavior. We must change our lives and love one another. I have not researched whether or if this theory evolved into the present liberal theory of Jesus as martyr for the causes of the left. I suspect there is a connection.

With this background, what does the text of the gospel of John say?

Chapter 8 is the next point after chapter 1 where sin is mentioned. Jesus is talking with Pharisees and tells them, "You will die in your sin" (verse 21) "unless you believe that I am he" (24). In plain English, you will die unless you believe Jesus is the messiah (and follow him). Later in the chapter Jesus tells disciples if they follow him, "you will know the truth and the truth will make you free" (31). They are confused because they are not slaves as far as their legal status in society is concerned. Jesus says, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (34).

Chapter 9 is about Jesus healing a man born blind. Toward the end Jesus makes a general point, "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind" (39). Some Pharisees ask if they are blind. Jesus answers, "If you were blind you would not have sin. But now that you say 'we see' your sin remains" (41).

By chapter 12 the narrative has moved very close in time to the crucifixion. Jesus talks to his followers about his death, "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And when I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to myself" (31-32).

In chapter 15 Jesus is warning his disciples about the persecution they will face. Regarding these persecutors he says, "If I had not come and spoken to them they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin" (22).

In chapter 16 Jesus is promising his followers that after his death he will send the Advocate (the Holy Spirit) to them. "And when he comes, he will convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment; about sin because they do not believe in me, about righteousness because I am going to the Father and you will see me no more, and about judgment because the ruler of this world has been condemned" (8-11).

My take on these passages - and you can make your own inferences - is that sin is a matter of being enslaved, being oppressed. The oppressor is the ruler of this world, the devil. Yes, people who are arrogant like the Pharisees, who have the chance to follow Jesus but reject him, are more culpable, but everyone is enslaved. If you don't believe in Jesus you stay in that condition. The resurrection of Jesus to the Father in heaven confirms that Jesus is righteous and is the agent to accomplish the Father's will. In life Jesus confronted evil and won each confrontation, but such small victories were inconclusive. By being killed but then raising from the dead, Jesus demonstrated complete righteousness and supremacy, and the devil was judged and condemned.

The gospel of John matches reasonably well with Aulen's classical theory.

--- At this point I have run out of space. Please go to Part 2, The Gospel of John ---

Friedman is the founder and CEO of STRATFOR, a private intelligence and forecasting company based in Austin, Texas. His perspective is "real politic" on steroids. Bismarck would have found him cold and analytical. Compared to the PC nonsense from most politicians and commentators, his unique point of view is very refreshing.

The book attempts to tell us what's likely to happen in the remainder of the 21st Century. In the near term, 10 to 30 years out, it is plausible and thought provoking. Beyond that it's very speculative.

Friedman starts his 21st Century chronology by telling us the war with radical Islam, whom he calls Jihadists, is essentially over. There is talk of a "long war" and in fact desultory conflict may continue, but America has won what it had to win, preventing Al Qaeda from uniting Islam and posing a serious threat to the US. He then pauses to describe America's "Grand Strategy" to protect our country and project power and influence abroad.

Before reading the book I would have described America's grand strategy as essentially defensive, preventing any major hostile state or organization from gaining a strong position in our hemisphere, or dominating Europe or the western Pacific (the two areas we fought to defend in WW 2). Friedman is more detailed, more complete, and I think pretty persuasive. He says we have five goals in order of priority:

1. The complete domination of North America by the US Army
2. The elimination of any threat to the US by any power in the western hemisphere
3. Complete control of the maritime approaches to the US by the Navy in order to preclude any possibility of invasion
4. Complete domination of the world's oceans to further secure the US physical safety and guarantee control over the international trading system
5. The prevention of any other nation from challenging US global naval power

Goal #1 was probably accomplished when we won the Mexican American War in 1848. #2 was probably accomplished more gradually as we excluded European powers from the western hemisphere late in the 19th century. #3 perhaps was achieved with Lend-Lease when the British gave us control of their naval bases in exchange for war material in WW2. #4 came as a result of our victory in WW2. #5 is an ongoing challenge although victory in the Cold War went a long way toward that end.

A curious consequence of this list is that the ultimate goal of US involvement in the eastern hemisphere is to prevent any other power from building a navy that could challenge the US. I thought we fought WW2 to keep the Nazis and the Cold War to keep the Russians from dominating Europe and the world. Is Friedman saying that was only an intermediate objective; ultimately we didn't want them building a navy?

Friedman finesses the question by saying the US should act to prevent any regional power from getting too strong, so that they could eventually challenge the US. No need to talk about shipyards or aircraft carriers, just keep any potential enemy off balance and weak. This means the US doesn't have to win wars in the eastern hemisphere, just keep others from gathering too much power. We can "win" a conflict even if we don't have a clear-cut battlefield victory.

Another consequence of the pursuit of global naval power is the importance of the military use of space. If you control space you can see any place in the oceans - every place in the oceans - and you can attack that place. Our present naval superiority could be obsoleted overnight. A great navy can only survive with superiority in space. Get ready to write some big checks to the space program.

After the Jihadists Friedman addresses China's potential as a major force in global politics. Before reading his book I would have said China is the next superpower, the next nation to compete with the US on an equal footing. Not so says Friedman; China is a paper tiger. His reasoning is that China has two very serious problems, (1) a tendency toward decentralization, toward regionalism and disunity, especially with conflict between the coastal cities and the interior, and (2) their economy.

I thought China's economy was the wonder of the world. Friedman says for the 30 years of tremendous growth China has experienced, capital has been allocated on the basis of political rather than economic reasoning. There are an astronomical number of bad loans, unprofitable enterprises and inefficient businesses. An economy can't keep growing forever, reasons Friedman, and when it does reverse the downturn will be severe and long term. He describes inherent flaws in the Japanese economy and says China is Japan on steroids, headed for an even bigger economic reversal. He expects the problem to hit sometime in the next decade.

Economic hard times will exacerbate problem #1, the tendency toward regionalism and disunity. Since nobody believes in communism anymore, at least in China, in the face of economic depression the central government will use nationalism to try to hold the country together. They will manufacture a crisis with the US or its ally Japan. This will be China's downfall because they cannot develop the naval and other military power within a decade to take on the US. Friedman projects that when China loses that confrontation it will dissolve into competing regions.

Who knows? I have not read any other experts who see China's decentralizing tendencies as so serious a problem as Friedman does. Whatever internal problems China's economy may have, they sure are developing a lot of productive capacity, a lot of infrastructure, and a lot of skilled managers and technical people. Friedman's prediction is provocative, plausible, but well under 100% certain.

Russia is a different story, a greater threat. There will be a future conflict, perhaps "cold" perhaps "hot," between Russia and the US. The reason is geography. Russia sits on the northern European plain, a vast swath of land stretching from the Pyrenees to the Urals, without any natural, defensible boundaries. The plain also stretches south into Ukraine and to Central Asia. Any country on the northern European plain has to worry about the security of their borders. There are only two ways to defend against potential attack; a strong military or territorial expansion. The further you push out your own border, the greater the distance an invader must travel to attack your heartland.

Russia will, of necessity, follow the same policy Moscow has followed for 8 centuries, since its emergence as a power in the region: expand westward as far as possible, and south until it controls the plains and reaches natural geographic boundaries (e.g. the Black Sea, the Caucuses, the Caspian, the central Asian desert).

From the standpoint of Russian defense strategists, this strategy has become very urgent since the end of the Cold War. The Cold War resulted in various Soviet Republics which were not ethnically Russian becoming independent nations. They are no longer controlled by the Russian army. That means Russia's borders on the vast plain moved 1000 miles closer to Moscow. And that doesn't even factor in the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, which put much more territory between Moscow and the western powers. In Russian minds, a crisis.

The difficulty with the compulsory strategy Russia must follow is that to its immediate west and southwest are independent, sovereign nations, some of whom are even members of NATO. Although Russian strategists are thinking defense, their strategy requires aggression. There is no real distinction between offense and defense in the mind of a Russian military strategist. Russian aggression to the west will result in what Friedman calls a "rematch" between the US and Russia.

Russia will have a lot of assets in the rematch; a vast population and territory, extensive natural resources, western European dependency on Russian energy supplies, a more modern and effective army, the pacifism and even cowardice of many longtime NATO members... But they will also have many liabilities; ethnic diversity and potential division within the country, severe demographic problems (their population is shrinking), and a strong desire for freedom among eastern European countries. Russia will win some things, retaking Belarus and Ukraine, but Friedman expects this conflict to turn out like the Cold War, with the US economy and technology eventually wearing Russia down.

Friedman goes on to speculate which powers will emerge after the demise of China and Russia. His picks are Japan, Turkey and Poland. The cases he makes are plausible but who knows? Predicting the shape of the world 30 or 40 years out is uncertain. The one thing he is confident about is American preeminence. He is very upbeat about the 21st Century being one of American dominance.

The first sentence of Chapter 1 is, "There is a deep-seated belief in America that the United States is approaching the eve of its destruction." Friedman then goes on to deride the pessimism and point out America's strengths. It is true that environmentalists, Christian fundamentalists and others tend to be pretty irrational about their apocalyptic visions, but Friedman is definitely a glass-half-full kind of guy.

Some of America's strengths he cites are constant or at least very long-lasting, such as our geographic position astride both the Atlantic and Pacific, the two great arteries of world trade; our openness to immigrants and our relative demographic strength; and the dominance of our navy which has endured for 6 decades since WW2 (it takes a long time to build a world class navy).

But Friedman seems blind to things that can change, such as a strong economy, dynamic industries, technological innovation, willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, and willingness to fight when national interests are threatened.

Friedman cannot imagine the US could become "decadent" like the western Europeans. Yet European decadence results not from inherent differences from other human populations, nor solely from the tragedy of two world wars, but as a result of deliberate government policies of high taxes, cradle to grave welfare, fiscal irresponsibility, stagnant economies, government involvement in nearly all facets of life, redistribution of income, subsidies for failure and the unwillingness to work, freedom from individual responsibility or morality, confiscation of rewards for innovation, requiring businessmen to devote the greater part of their energies to dealing with politicians rather than customers, competitors, or the market, etc. etc. European decadence is the foreseeable consequence of political and economic policies.

If the US government puts such policies in place, Americans will respond as western Europeans have. The Left in America stands for exactly these things. Perhaps not Friedman personally, but as a Democrat he seems to be blind to the risks of his party's policies. His President and all the Congressional leadership want us to be more like western Europe. There is an uncanny resemblance between Obama's agenda and that of British Prime Minister Clement Atlee after WW2, the man who brought socialism to Great Britain, made the economy moribund, and removed Britain from the list of great powers. Whether or not the 21st Century is America's Century depends on the failure of the Left's agenda.

3. Christian Apocalyptic Theology

"Christian apocalyptic" can mean a couple things. It can refer to the fire and brimstone preaching we still hear today in fundamentalist churches across the US. Such preaching is almost wholly ignorant of Jewish theological developments prior to and contemporaneous with the time of Christ. It has many valid perspectives because it is based on a reading of the New Testament, but it is focused on getting to heaven and on canceling out personal sin by accepting Jesus as a personal savior.

What I want to discuss when using the term "Christian apocalyptic theology" is the body of ideas of 1st Century Christians which modified and restated the tenets of Jewish apocalyptic thinking. Virtually all of the earliest Christians were Jewish. They were well aware of Jewish apocalyptic theology. Christ preached and taught a message they understood as a continuation of Jewish thinking. As with Jewish thinking, the focus was on what God was doing and was about to do in this world, within the flow of history.

Matthew and Mark are the earliest of the four gospels and seem to have been written to ethnically Jewish communities. What Jesus taught, as recounted in these gospels, gets us closest to what Jesus actually taught and the perspective he actually had. In order to understand these gospels it is necessary to be have some understanding of Jewish apocalyptic theology.

a. History

The first difference between Jewish and Christian apocalyptic ideas is in the historical time line. Jews expected one cataclysmic event when God would intervene in history, with great power. Perhaps everything would happen instantly, or perhaps the messiah would take a few years to conquer all enemies, but from the long perspective of history it would be one event, over quickly, with God and His agent holding absolute power.

Jesus Christ and the writers of the gospels and epistles saw two events, the inauguration of the kingdom with Jesus' ministry then a later event when the reign of God would be established with great temporal power, in obvious domination of all the earth. This second event, which Christians call the second coming, would be very much like what the Jews expected. The initial coming of the messiah was something new, unexpected and hard to understand.

The duration of the interval between the two was also hard to understand. During his ministry the disciples expected Jesus to establish the kingdom with great temporal power at any time. The disciples then expected the kingdom to be established with great temporal power right after the resurrection (Acts 1:6). Jesus' response was that it was not for them to know the time. The early church expected Christ's return at any time. The words of the early church in the New Testament are the basis of many a sermon today asserting we are in the last days, and the Lord's return is immanent. In fact we just don't know God's schedule.

b. Implications

This two step process for establishing the reign of God in this world is key to understanding the difference between Jewish and New Testament theology.

The launch of Jesus' ministry occurs when he is baptized by John, and at the same time is anointed by the Holy Spirit, which descends on him "like a dove" (Matthew 3:13-17). This is in dramatic contrast to the Jewish expectation. The Holy Spirit was expected to descend on the whole world with fire, destruction, and great power. The power that was imparted to Jesus was used for good, to heal, to free people from spiritual oppression, and to meet their deepest needs. It was gentle and operated by persuasion rather than compulsion.

Jesus traveled around preaching about the reign of God, in an effort to persuade and enlighten people rather than overpower them. This first coming was utterly different from the Jewish apocalyptic expectation. It was about drawing people to God rather than subjugating them. The fight was not on the battlefield but in people's hearts and minds.

The spread of the rule of God would happen gradually rather than in some global war. Jesus attempted to explain this difference by many parables about the kingdom, such as analogies to mustard seeds or leaven, where the kingdom would start slowly, grow in ways hardly perceived, but eventually be very great. Evidently God wants a whole lot more people to enter His kingdom than the number of believing Jews who lived at Jesus' time. That's why it's taking so long.

The preaching, healing, miracles and exorcisms were his public ministry. But Jesus also had a personal challenge. The very first thing that happened after he was anointed by the Holy Spirit was that he was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. To understand what that's about we must go back to the garden of Eden, the starting point for any apocalyptic time line.

Chapter 1 of Genesis shows how God created an orderly world that was very good, and that had a specific hierarchy with humans at the top, exercising dominion in the image of God. Genesis chapters 2 and 3 are the story of Adam and Eve. By God's design He was at the top of the hierarchy and Adam and Eve had to obey Him. They did not and the blessings of Eden were lost.

Jesus' personal ministry / personal challenge was, as a "second Adam" or "final Adam" to live his entire life in accordance with God's original design for His creation, always placing the father's will above his own, even in the most dire circumstances. That challenge is what the crucifixion was primarily about. If Jesus could place the Father's will above his own in all circumstances - and he did - he would be righteous. God's design would be operational. Jesus would have eternal life and all authority. Just as God originally created things and Adam and Eve originally lived, Jesus would exercise power and dominion over all creation.

Since the Jewish apocalyptics taught us about the spirit dimension, we know it too is part of creation and Jesus rules over the spirit dimension as well.

Jesus fulfilled his private and public ministries. Now we who voluntarily follow him can taste this Eden-like existence, but only get a taste because of our weakness and the continued existence of forces of evil. In the future, at the second coming when Jesus utterly vanquishes evil, then we too will be able to live righteously and live in the manner God originally designed.

c. The spirit dimension

Jewish apocalyptics perceived a host of evil spirits to be active in the world, yet the Jews were focused on the visible and concrete. Spirits were often behind the evil men did, but politics, nationalism, partisanship and the establishment of a temporal kingdom were the Jews' concern. Christians accepted the Jewish perspective of a spiritual dimension to reality but regarded it as primary, the dimension where the most important battles were fought. As the Apostle Paul says, "For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil..." (Ephesians 6:12).

Following the resurrection Christians understood Jesus to be fully human and a spiritual being as well, able to function effectively in both dimensions. This is not the same thing as being both God and man; Adam and Eve, if they had never sinned, would have been quite similar. Jesus is in heaven now because God's timetable has us in this interim period with the kingdom expanding but the forces of evil still active. In heaven Jesus reigns without any opposition, as God's designee. The early Christians would have thought of Jesus as a Davidic king functioning in the spirit dimension but, for the time being, not in the temporal (except where people follow him voluntarily).

At this stage for us, the key battleground is our own heart and mind. The greatest challenge is for us to place God's will above our own and above whatever the forces of evil may try to deceive us with. This is the battle Jesus won in his first appearance on earth. Now his ultimate triumph is inevitable, and eventually we will be like him.

d. Metaphors

Like the Jews, Christians searched the scriptures for ways to describe the messiah and his work. Because the coming of Christ was sui generis, unique, they could not explicitly describe it in direct language. A number of metaphors were used, many of which but not all had already been used by the Jewish thinkers.

Christians used the idea of a prophet like Moses only greater. I don't recall direct statements in the New Testament to this effect but it is an underlying theme of the gospel of Matthew.

"Son of God" to the Jews was a reference to a (human) king of Israel descended from David. This is counter-intuitive but please see my blog entry on Mark 1:1-11 which explains the Old Testament basis. Christians used the phrase in two ways, firstly as the Jews did to refer to a Davidic king, but secondly in the literal sense that the Holy Spirit made Mary pregnant. This can be a source of confusion, for example in the first few verses of Romans (Rom 1:4) Paul says the resurrection had the effect of declaring Jesus Christ son of God with power. People sometimes ask why Paul had not heard of the nativity stories. Paul was referring to the affirmation of Jesus as a mighty king.

The kingdom metaphor was the one Jesus used in his teaching. It is consistent with Jewish apocalyptic theology. The Greek word for kingdom can also be translated reign, so while "kingdom" is a metaphor perhaps bringing to mind England with its royal family, or other earthly kings, "reign" accurately describes proper relationships, with God as supreme and Jesus as his agent. For the first (ethnically Jewish) Christians the metaphor related directly to the Davidic dynasty, but it was projected beyond the temporal to function in the spiritual dimensions (and in heaven) as well.

Son of man is another phrase with a couple of meanings. To knowledgeable Jews it was a reference to Daniel 7, where a being with the appearance of a man would come down from heaven to act as God's agent. How could the messiah be both a heavenly being and a human king? Also in the local vernacular son of man just meant a person, a human male. It was almost self-deprecating when Jesus referred to himself that way. But toward the end of his ministry Jesus told the disciples that he was the son of man prophesied in Daniel (see Mark 13:24-27). Jesus delivered the same message to the high priest at his trial (Mark 14:61-62). Here the Christian historical time line comes into play; Jesus was referring to his second coming, in the future.

A metaphor for the messiah Christians used but Jews did not (or if they ever did they stopped after Jesus) was suffering servant. Isaiah prophesied about the suffering servant in chapters 42, 49, 50, and 52-53. It is consistent with the personal ministry Jesus had at his first coming, suffering in order to prove his righteousness and his worthiness to receive power.

e. Perspective

The picture that emerges from a comparison of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic theology is interesting. God has acted to intervene in history, to restore His original design for creation, but with a two step process. According to the design vast numbers of us will (eventually) live an Eden-like existence, as part of creation, with all our needs provided, not dying, and always putting God's will above our own.

In the first step Jesus proved that he was righteous and that he was worthy. As a result he was raised from the dead, has eternal life, and he was crowned king. Jesus lives and reigns, seated at the right hand of God. He reigns in heaven but on earth only over those who voluntarily follow him. Christians have adopted the Jewish idea of a Davidic king as son of God. Jesus, the son of God, is a man. He is human, but he is Adam-like (before the Fall) in the sense that he has eternal life and power and dominion. So we worship one God and like the monotheistic Jews we regard the king as God's agent to whom allegiance is due. The difference is the king, for the time being, is seated in heaven rather than on a throne on earth.

In his earthly ministry Jesus inaugurated this kingdom by voluntarily drawing people to him, a process which continues today. Being part of the Kingdom of God is a matter of believing Jesus lives and reigns, and giving him your allegiance.

At the second coming Jesus will exercise great power, vanquish evil, and change creation so it will be Eden-like, and we will live as God originally intended.

A note of caution is needed at this point. The third approach to scripture requires us to take each book of the New Testament on its own, not assuming they all express the same theology. This "kingdom theology" was probably what Jesus was thinking, as well as the authors of Matthew and Mark. Luke and Paul knew, understood and generally agreed with it but both targeted gentiles in their ministries, so Luke focused on the peace, blessings and goodness of the kingdom, and Paul focused on Jesus as Lord. The gospel of John, written a two or three generations after the crucifixion, specifically declines to use the kingdom metaphor for its message (John 3:1-6).

Hebrews - and I'd really like to take a good course on Hebrews - appears to by written for an audience of Hellenized Jews, perhaps in Alexandria, in any event outside the Holy Land. It appears to mix Jewish cultic symbols with a platonic perspective. So the value of insights gained from an understanding of apocalyptic theology diminishes when the book you are studying is decades after Christ, or the audience differs culturally from Jews living in the Holy Land.

IV. Conclusion

20th Century developments in scholarship enable us to read the Bible with much greater understanding than before. Advances in our understanding of what is going on in the New Testament texts themselves, advances in understanding of human language and communication, a new awareness of the spirit dimension to reality, and an appreciation of the Jewish intellectual context in which Jesus preached and the New Testament books were written, all give us a fresh approach to scripture with much greater insight. We are able to get much closer to what Jesus taught and what the early church perceived.

If we wish to base our theology solely on scripture - something Protestants claim to do when they are in fact very much wedded to tradition - then we need to reevaluate our established concepts, creeds and doctrines.

I. Introduction
II. Three Approaches to Reading the Bible
A. Before the Reformation
B. After the Reformation
C. 20th Century Bible Study
1. Messianic secret
2. Synopsis of the Four Gospels
III. Additional 20th Century Developments
A. Epistemology
1. Wittgenstein
2. Quine
3. Implications
B. Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal
C. Apocalyptic Literature and Theology
1. What it means
2. Jewish Apocalyptic
3. Christian Apocalyptic
IV. Conclusion

I. Introduction

The ability to read the New Testament with understanding and confidence is a goal I have pursued over several decades, and has included taking for credit or auditing about 20 semesters of Bible classes in two graduate seminaries, as well as numerous adult Bible classes in churches. Even though I do not have a career in the church, I took the time to get a Masters in Biblical Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary.

What I offer below is my own perspective which I hope will be informative to interested lay people. There are thousands of scholars, preachers, teachers and lay people who have also studied the Bible extensively, some much more than me, so I certainly admit there are other valuable perspectives.

II. Three Approaches To Reading the Bible

First I'll discuss general approaches to the Bible. I limit my discussion to approaches which assume scripture is somehow "from God". In some way the text has its source in / from the creator God, who transcends all His creation, and has revealed Himself to faithful Jews and Christians. There are many other ways to approach scripture; skeptics consider it myths and fables, some regard it as literature and history no more valuable than other ancient documents, those in the more liberal wing of the church regard scripture as valuable because of its foundational role in the Christian cultural tradition but without a supernatural component, and so on. I limit my discussion to those approaches which assume scripture is unique and of significantly greater value than other writing because, in some sense, it comes from God.

A. Before the Reformation

The first approach was widespread before the Protestant Reformation. Everyone agreed the Bible was true, and holy, and the word of God. This was a simple time. There were various sources of authority - the church, church creeds, the Bible, the works of theologians - and no one worried about which source was more authoritative. If ever it was necessary to identify the most authoritative, the church was preeminent. Printing had not yet been invented in the western world, so there were not widely followed public debates that progressed into in-depth biblical scholarship on more and more detailed issues. Certainly there was theological debate, but it was pretty broad-brush. See for example my blog entry on Soteriology, specifically the discussion of Anselm and Abelard. The debates were not about particular Bible passages or how to apply them.

Only a tiny fraction (2% ?) of the population was literate, and the same people who were literate were the ones who shared power, and were not inclined to develop schismatic interpretations of scripture. Sure, everybody who read the Bible had their own point of view, but it didn't generate controversy. In the rare event people outside the establishment came up with novel positions they insisted on pursuing, like the Cathars in southern France, Hussites in what is now the Czech Republic, or followers of Tyndale in England, it was a fairly localized event and the problem was readily solved by murdering the heretics.

So the Bible was honored as Truth and there was little controversy about interpretation. There may have been potential issues beneath the surface, but that's where the issues stayed, beneath the surface.

B. After the Reformation

Gutenberg and Martin Luther ushered in a new era, what I am calling the second general approach.

Martin Luther quarreled with the Catholic Church over the sale of indulgences. In exchange for a generous contribution, the Church arranged for you to pay less for your sins, that is, spend much less time in Purgatory. Luther, on good biblical authority, asserted sins were forgiven by the grace of God, not by the church. In essence he was asserting that the Bible was a higher authority than the Catholic Church and its leader, the Pope. Luther had a name for his doctrinal position, sola scriptura, Latin for scripture alone (as the highest authority in doctrinal matters).

The church was unable to solve this problem in the time honored way of killing Luther and his followers for a couple reasons. One was political support for Luther from the local government, which was tired of Rome taking money out of the local economy and meddling in local affairs. The other was the problem was too widespread. Lots of people were reading about the dispute and taking an interest. In addition other "protestants" were springing up in other parts of Europe. In German speaking Switzerland Zwingli was disputing Catholic doctrine, and lay people, reading the Bible on their own, were questioning infant baptism, among other things.

Protestants were showing up even in hard core Catholic countries like France, Italy and Spain. They read the Bible on their own and questioned one doctrine after another. The Catholic Church responded vigorously with theological debate, debate over interpretation of scripture, political pressure, even the Inquisition, and war. Reformation and counter-reformation shook Europe.

Protestants were fighting with the Catholic hierarchy, so they emphasized scripture over church authority. But they needed all the support they could get, so they did not quarrel with other established sources of authority. They fully subscribed to the creeds of the early church. They claimed the early church fathers, such as St. Augustine, as their own. (Although Catholics trace the origin of the Roman church to Peter and Paul, the Catholic Church really emerged as an independent center of power and authority under Pope Gregory the Great after the collapse of imperial Rome.) Many important doctrinal positions had been developed by the church fathers during the Roman Empire, and Protestants accepted most all of them. Sola scriptura meant the Bible prevailed over the positions of the Roman Catholic church, but did not lead to a reexamination of established doctrines.

So a couple features of what I'm calling the second general approach can be discerned at this point. One is that basic church doctrines like the Trinity and the divinity of Christ are assumed without discussion to be both true and biblical, then are used to interpret and understand the Bible.

A second feature is the idea of many different interpretations of the Bible being valid. Actually each scholar or leader claimed only his interpretation was valid, but there was no central authority (formerly Rome) to resolve the differences. So many different doctrines developed, all with some scriptural basis. Doctrines depended on which verses and issues people focused on, and on how they understood those passages. For example among Protestants, infant baptism was a burning issue for some - on both sides of the issue - and other groups didn't pay much attention to it. To a degree these different interpretations account for the many denominations we have today.

Contemporaneous with the Reformation something was happening at an even deeper level, although I don't know if it was ever consciously realized or expressed. Print was such a powerful medium, so much more effective in transmitting ideas than oral or handwritten expression, that people came to assume, without reflecting on it, that truth itself could be captured in the written word. The assumption grew that truth, all truth, the totality of truth, was "propositional". It could be stated expressly. On any particular issue, or on the grandest issues, there was one true and correct position, and it could be written down (and printed) as a single, coherent declarative statement.

Naturally people sought that truth, and they assumed it was stated in the Bible. Unfortunately the Bible is not laid out as an express declarative statement of all truth. Paul's letter the to Roman church is a little bit like that, at least the first half of it, but the Bible is full of narratives, stories, songs and poems, history, letters, curious prophecy, visions and dreams ... not quite the format we would expect for a definitive statement of all truth.

As this perspective seeped in over the decades after Luther, the challenge became to systematically restate all truth propositionally, using as raw materials the Bible, church creeds and the theology of church fathers, which were understood to be consistent with the Bible. The first major practitioner of this skill was John Calvin, writing his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin begins with foundational, indisputable truths; God is all powerful, God is all knowing. Calvin builds a whole theology with a few starting points. It's a bit like Euclid's Geometry starting with a few axioms and postulates, although Calvin uses scripture to support his points all along the way.

One example of a doctrinal position he arrives at is predestination. If God knows everything and controls everything, it's logical to conclude the future is in His hands as well. And Calvin had the verses to support his position. Calvin held fast to his views on predestination, after all he had developed the doctrine with impeccable logic and had the Bible verses for support. Other Christians weren't so sure. They noted the Great Commission which required active spread of the gospel (why send out missionaries if God has already decided who will be saved and who won't?), and the doctrine of free will. So critics set about developing their own statements of All Truth, since in their view Calvin had fallen short. They didn't question the underlying assumption that there was one absolute truth, universally applicable, which could be captured expressly in the written word.

Two other general features of this second general approach can be mentioned. One is the extremely high value placed on scripture. It is the word of God and it is absolute truth. Today the word "inerrant" is used to describe this position. Although not expressly stated, belief in the Bible came to be absolutely essential, like belief in God and belief in the resurrection.

Paradoxically another feature of this second general approach was the very elevated status of systematic theology. It did not seem that the Bible expressed truth in a user-friendly format, so the theologians who, using scripture citations, organize and repackage the scriptural truths into a systematic format are regarded in the second general approach, as foremost among theologians.

The second approach is alive and well today. There are thousands of dedicated scholars and students of the Bible working with essentially the same raw materials as Calvin; scripture, well-established church doctrine, and logic. Most are confident that they are on the right path and everybody else is just a little bit off.

C. 20th Century Bible Study

The third general approach has developed recently, although its roots go back centuries. It involves looking at each book of the Bible individually (or sometimes several books by the same author, like Luke-Acts). As early as the 16th Century Erasmus was saying each book of the Bible should be studied on its own. Spinoza in the 17th Century made a similar point. Early in the 1800's German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (known as the father of liberal Protestant theology) said the goal of study for each book of the Bible was to understand the [human] author's intent.

For believing Christians as well as other scholars studying each book in and of itself is the most valuable approach, but we would not say a Bible book is merely the work of a human author alone. The assumption is that each author was inspired by God, even though each book was written by a specific author for a specific community with specific concerns. For believers as well as academic scholars the challenge is to understand what the book originally meant, in context, to its original intended audience.

1. The Messianic Secret

The professor of my New Testament Introduction class at Fuller (Dr. Russ Spitler) started started with an early example of the method. A German scholar, William Wrede, published The Messianic Secret in 1901. (Since he was German his last name is pronounced Vray-duh.) Wrede noticed that the gospel of Mark, in spite of being only about half the length of Matthew or Luke, has more verses in which Jesus tells disciples, or commands demons, not to reveal who he is, where he is, etc. Quite simply Mark emphasizes Jesus' commands of secrecy significantly more than the other gospels. (See verses in Mark: 1:23 :34, :43, 3:11, 5:43, 7:24, :36, 8:26, :30, 9:9, & 9:30.) What is going on?

Wrede speculated that Mark made it up! He guessed Jesus never said anything about secrecy, but that the author of the gospel had his own reasons for portraying Jesus as insisting on secrecy, and Wrede then commenced to speculate what those reasons might be. One of the persistent problems with modern biblical scholarship is that many of its practitioners are skeptics, so believers notice the oddball conclusions and throw out the whole discipline. More on that below.

More reasonable scholars came up with a balanced view that Jesus did indeed demand secrecy at various points in his ministry, but because of special aspects of the gospel of Mark possibly having to do with the concerns of the community, the theological points implicit in the narrative, or other reasons, Mark found it appropriate and necessary to emphasize the issue more than other gospels. So Mark was different than the other gospels. Why? In what other ways? How different? Was this true of other books? The search was on to understand the special circumstances and concerns of each book of the New Testament.

Because the uniqueness of a book of the New Testament was likely to be tied to the special circumstances and concerns of the community for which it was written, in a sense this new direction for scholarship was a matter of understanding context. Understanding context was a vital principle of biblical interpretation well before 1900, as it is for fundamentalist as well as other scholars today. It's just that the effort to understand context became much more extensive, deeper and complicated.

Wrede had looked at Mark like an entomologist examining a beetle; he tried to eliminate preconceptions and just observe what was there. He noticed something unusual (Messianic secrecy) and followed it where it took him. Science, whose methods had demonstrated such power in the past few centuries, was being applied to Bible study.

In fact Wrede was not accurately following the example of the scientific method. When scientists investigate physical phenomenon they start with "faith" that the laws of the physical universe apply not just in the one experiment they observe, but in all similar circumstances. Gravity works not just in the laboratory but with apples falling from trees and with the moon orbiting the earth. The experiment the scientist performs today can be repeated tomorrow, because the rules don't change from day to day.

The scientific method requires the observer to put aside assumptions he or she may have about what is being observed and to be as objective as possible. But it does not require the scientist to abandon the "faith" that nature's laws are consistent from place to place and time to time. If the scientist rejects that, the study is pointless.

Wrede, trying to be scientific, doubted absolutely everything. In that he departed from the example of the scientific method. If you are seeking God, faith is essential. You have to believe God exists. If you seek what God has revealed in scripture, you have to believe God was somehow involved in its writing. Those are essential starting points. If you make different initial assumptions you get nonsense results, as did Wrede. Once you make valid initial assumptions then it is good to test, to question, to compare and to speculate.

2. Synopsis of the Four Gospels

There are four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each is a story of Jesus' ministry, plus Matthew and Luke tell about his birth and a bit about his early life. Before Wrede each was regarded as history and a logical task was to come up with a "harmony" or the gospels, that is to compile all the facts from the four books into one more complete history of Jesus' life and ministry.

Once the realization sank in that something different was going on in each book, the challenge became to compare, to contrast, to identify and explain differences. In my opinion the most useful tool facilitating this study is The Synopsis of the Four Gospels, first published in 1963, by Kurt Aland, a German scholar.

The Synopsis takes the Greek text of the gospels, with many footnotes about which ancient manuscripts are used as sources, and places them side by side in four columns. On the facing page is a translation, which for Aland was originally in German, but you can buy a Synopsis with the translation in English. Every student in my New Testament course bought one.

Only texts that are very similar are placed side by side, so it is rare for all four columns to be filled. On the other hand there is enough similarity that it is also rare for one column to stand alone.

Many interesting things emerge when you look at gospel stories side by side. Particularly when you look at Matthew, Mark and Luke you often see language which is very, very similar. Either one copied from the other or they had the same earlier written or oral source.

I'll discuss a couple of examples where having the texts side by side makes it easier to compare and analyze.

a. The Anointing in Bethany

All four gospels tell this story, although Luke's rendition is different enough that you can debate about whether he describes the same event. The texts are Matt 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 7:36-50 and John 12:1-8.

Matthew tells the basic story. Jesus is at the house of Simon the leper in Bethany. An unnamed woman comes to Jesus with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment and pours it on his head. The disciples are indignant over the waste, saying the money could have been given to the poor, but Jesus stops them and says the act was done to prepare him for burial.

Both Matthew and Mark include this direct quote from Jesus, "Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."

Mark has very similar language to Matthew, beginning with the statement that Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper. Mark only adds a few details, that Jesus was "at table," that the ointment was nard and its value was 300 denarii.

John adds a lot more detail, one item of which is contradictory. The meal took place in Bethany but was prepared by Jesus' friends Lazarus, Martha and Mary - not Simon the leper. It is Mary who anoints Jesus and it is Judas Iscariot specifically who objects to use of the ointment, rather than its sale in order to give to the poor. John even tells us Judas' motivation (he was group treasurer and a thief).

I believe John describes the same event as Matthew and Mark. The timing is the same, just before Jesus' final week in Jerusalem. The sequence of events is the same, much of the language is the identical, we even have the virtually identical quote from Jesus at the end, "The poor you will always have with you, but you do [will] not always have me." (I doubt Jesus said that more than once.)

At this point could you start writing a harmony? Each rendition added more details but in addition to the Lazarus / Simon problem, a couple of John's other details don't match. In John Mary anoints Jesus' feet, not his head. And Jesus, instead of saying the anointing prepared him for burial, says regarding the ointment, "Let her keep it for the day of my burial." I'm not sure how much of a problem these two details are for people who believe the Bible is inerrant. However the Lazarus / Simon issue would require explanation and might generate talk about lack of the original manuscripts, errors in transmission, or such.

Luke is very different. For one thing he places the anointing early in the story, unrelated to that final week in Jerusalem. He never mentions burial. The meal is at the home of Simon, a Pharisee. I don't know if a Pharisee can also be a leper, but it's important to Luke's narrative that the host be of high status. The whole point of Luke's story is to compare the behavior of Simon with that of the humble woman ("who was a sinner").

The woman is a portrait of total humility and adoration of Jesus. She is in tears, she wets Jesus' feet with her tears then wipes them with her hair, then anoints his feet with the expensive ointment. Simon on the other hand is ungenerous, haughty and judgmental. He offers nothing to Jesus in the way of welcome, looks on the woman with contempt, and condemns Jesus for allowing the woman to touch him.

With compelling prose Luke tells how Jesus rebukes the Pharisee and blesses the woman, forgiving her sins (which forgiveness causes Simon and his pals to murmur about anyone but God forgiving sins, and to condemn Jesus all the more).

The easiest way to explain Luke's passage in comparison to the others is to say different woman, different house, different meal, different story. But are we certain?

Luke's story has details in common with the others. Like Matthew and Mark, the host is named Simon. Like Mark and John, it takes place when Jesus is "at table." Identically with Mark and consistent with the others, it involves "an alabaster flask of ointment." Like in John she anoints the feet of Jesus and wipes his feet with her hair. In all four stories the people around the table are indignant about the event.

Luke wrote not only the gospel but also Acts. It appears Luke joined Paul in Troas (Troy) before Paul went to Macedonia because the narrative switches from what "they" (Paul's party) did to what "we" did (Acts 16:6-10). This was decades after Christ. It was even years after the meet-up at Troy when Luke accompanied Paul to Judea. Paul ended up in prison and Luke presumably spent the time talking to Christians, researching his two books. How plausible is it that all those years there were two different stories circulating about two different women who anointed Jesus, where many details are similar?

On the other hand you could say the passage of decades helps explain how the stories of two different events became conflated, with details mixing and matching. In any event looking at all four passages side by side makes the issues impossible to ignore.

b. Celebrating the Passover meal

The Last Supper is described in all four gospels. See Matt 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-20 (plus conversation which evidently occurred at the meal through v. 38), and John chapters 13 through 17.

The narratives of Matthew, Mark and Luke are quite similar and could be used to write a harmony. It is clear that Jesus celebrates the passover meal with his disciples, and that he initiates the ceremony which much of he Christian church calls communion, eating the bread and drinking the wine, as Luke says, in remembrance of him.

John is remarkably different. Looking at the four columns on the pages of the Synopsis, John's column is largely blank when the others describe the event, and vice versa. John alone describes Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, the new commandment of love, and the long "farewell discourse" taking up chapters 14 through 17. In a couple of areas the narratives overlap; when Jesus talks about the fact that one of his disciples will betray him, and when he predicts Peter will fall away. The passages are generally consistent, but with added details. All in all, even with the addition of John's gospel, what they say about the last supper could be used to construct a harmony. Except for one thing.

The last supper in John is not the passover meal. John's only reference to the time of the meal (i.e. whether it was the passover dinner) is a bit vague, in 13:1 he starts the chapter at a point "before the passover" then it's not certain how much time passes as the narrative goes forward. However we know from later in John that passover had not begun when Jesus was brought before Pilate, then crucified (18:28, 19:14).

How can John be so different on this point? Wouldn't people remember whether or not the last supper was the passover meal?

c. Reflections

People who believe the Bible is inerrant may be offended that I point out apparent inconsistencies. Their position is there are some things we don't understand now, but eventually we will and the absolute truth of scripture will, in due course, be vindicated. In the meantime it is not helpful for a believer to point out unresolved problems that may shake the faith of new Christians or give ammunition to critics.

The illustrations I give facilitate a discussion of differing assumptions about the Bible. I think the inerrantists are making a series of assumptions, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not: (1) There is a God and He is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. (2) God, through the Holy Spirit, has generated scripture, and safeguarded that process of generation so the Bible too is perfect. (3) The Bible is absolutely true, so regardless of the culture of the reader or the time in history from which one approaches scripture, its words are truth and are accurate in describing whatever is being addressed in the text.

Furthermore if you reject these assumptions you are abandoning faith, taking away the foundation for Christianity, and ultimately rejecting God. Call it a slippery slope or what you will, rejecting the Bible leads to unbelief. It is essential to hold fast to the Bible.

I agree with the first assumption; faith in God is essential to get anything of value out of scripture.

The second assumption, sometimes described as the Holy Spirit dictating to a faithful scribe, is probably more complicated than the Holy Spirit giving dictation. There is a human element. The Bible originally was written in three different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Why not just one? Why those three? Did this result from God picking exactly the best language to express each section, or did those happen to be the languages that the people who were most intently seeking God spoke?

Paul's letters often contain intense personal emotion, about rejection from churches he founded, about followers going astray, about the Jews not all accepting Christ... those passages don't sound like something dictated to Paul.

Much of the Bible requires knowledge of unstated, culture-specific background and context for full understanding. I think the issue of transmission of the message, from God to man, to the person we identify as the writer of a book of the Bible, is significantly more complicated than the Holy Spirit giving dictation. My operating assumption is not that God safeguarded the process so it was flawless, but that God safeguarded the process so the Bible is our best available source for the things of God, and He safeguarded the process enough to transmit His truth to us.

What is truth? This third issue is a tricky one, after all, wasn't that Pontius Pilate's question? I doubt truth is absolute. Yes, absolute truth exists, God understands it. We human beings, with our limited minds, limited languages, living in space and time, and in all manner of specific circumstances, do not utter or comprehend universal, eternal, unchanging truth. Five years ago I could have told you, and written in a letter, that my car was white. That would have been a true statement, no question about it. But if you find and read that old letter today, it's false. I now own a black car. I'm told Eskimos have a couple dozen words for snow. Imagine I went to some arctic society that had two dozen words for white. Perhaps I would be telling a falsehood when I said my car was white. Imagine I went to a society that had never seen a car. How might they understand my statement?

My operating assumption in reading the Bible is that truth is specific to the topic being addressed and to the audience for whom the passage was originally written. If a passage is about theology, but touches on issues of geology and biology, and I learn that the original audience for the passage had never heard of geology or biology because it was written many centuries before those two branches of science had been invented, then I do not make the assumption that the passage conveys absolute truth on those scientific topics.

Inerrantists, by asserting God's authorship and attributing universal truth to the Bible, appear to be greatly honoring scripture, but they are imposing their own preconceptions on the text. Is that really respectful? My position is to begin with belief that God inspired the writing of the text but to keep an open mind and learn about that process of inspiration. In any particular book of the Bible, I want to understand the truth the writer was conveying to his intended audience, with their own pressing concerns and special circumstances, and then ponder its universal applicability.

In my opinion what is "going on" in Matthew, Mark and Luke is narrative theology, rather than a history of what Jesus said and did. I can't convince you of that without a lengthy digression but it is something I hope to do in a later blog entry. My sense is that Matthew and Mark discuss pretty much the same topic that was the center of Jesus' preaching; the establishment of the rule of God, against opposition and obstacles, and Jesus' role in the rule of God.

Luke differs in that his intended audience was gentile, would be unfamiliar with Jewish religion, history and culture, and would be wary of any power other than Roman. So Luke emphasizes the blessings of the rule of God, such as good news to the poor, release to the captives, sight to the blind, the oppressed go free (Luke 4:17), and portrays Jesus as a prince of peace. Luke could be expected to want to tell a story, such as the anointing of Jesus by the woman, which illustrated his championing on the humble over the haughty.

In think John was writing for a community under stress, urging them with arguments selected for their emotional impact rather than theological precision, to remain loyal to Jesus and to stay in the community. It was natural for him to describe an event like the anointing which emphasized personal connections and community, Jesus eating with his friends. And regarding the passover, John had placed an extremely powerful image near the start of his book, Jesus as the passover lamb, "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). John stayed with that metaphor and did not contradict it when he described the last supper.

I have not proven my assertions in the preceding three paragraphs, but I hope they illustrate how the Bible might convey truth, truth of vital importance to specific communities, without following factual history in detail.

III. Additional 20th Century Developments

Other developments in various areas during the 20th Century also support what I call the third general approach to Bible study.

A. Epistemology

I'm going to write a few paragraphs on secular philosophy. I do not look to secular philosophers for information about God, but they do offer information about what humans are able to understand. In any communication, including God's word, there is both an encoder and a decoder, a speaker and a hearer. Limitations of the hearer will affect how the speaker constructs the message.

I have not completed even one semester of philosophy, and what I will say below could be ridiculed by experts for its simplicity and generality. I hope those experts would allow that, for my very limited purposes here, what I say is generally valid. I am primarily in debt to Prof. Nancey Murphy of Fuller Seminary who gave some excellent lectures on this topic.

Prior to the Reformation intellectual life in central and western Europe thrived within the church. The greatest universities, e.g. Paris, were schools of theology. The Reformation, with its wars, upheaval and irreconcilable disputes caused a yearning for a return to a unified worldview. Since theologians were in endless disputation, secular philosophers responded to the challenge. About a century after Martin Luther, a brilliant French philosopher and mathematician, Rene Descartes, proposed that reason be the foundation for a new unity. He tore away every assumption until he was left with an undeniable (for him) truth, that he was a thinking being ("I think therefore I am") then using reason built up a whole structure of truths about reality. In a way it was a bit like John Calvin reasoning from the foundational principles that God was all-powerful and all-knowing.

Using reason involved using language, obviously, and it involved what I'll call foundational thinking; starting with a few foundational principles and building a structure of ideas on top of them. For several centuries philosophers engaged in this process and made advancements. In the 20th Century some paused to reflect.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with how we can know things and what we can (and cannot) know. A number of great thinkers have contributed in this area. I'll discuss two to make my limited points.

1. Ludwig Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein was an Austrian who moved to England and became a professor at Cambridge. His major work was published in 1921, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. He was a pioneer of what has been called the linguistic turn, a movement in the 20th Century turning to language as a main subject of study in many disciplines, including philosophy, anthropology, sociology, literature and even in branches of ethics.

Language is the tool for expressing ideas and communicating ideas to others. In a very limited context, a specific situation, there is room for emotion, intuition, and non-verbal communication, but for both understanding and communicating ideas, and reaching across space and time, language is essential. For dealing with complex concepts or thorough analysis, language is essential. Wittgenstein wrote, "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world."

Until the linguistic turn language was assumed to be an effective tool when used skillfully. Wittgenstein saw that language had it limits. He concluded "what can be said at all can be said clearly and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence." He studied the logic of language to draw the limits to the expression of thought and to avoid "nonsense."

Words and expressions mean slightly different things to different people. The problem becomes more serious as you bridge cultures, languages or centuries. Wittgenstein pointed to this truth when he said, "if a lion could talk, we could not understand him."

2. W. V. O. Quine

Quine was a 20th Century American philosopher. He was a full professor at Harvard from 1956 to 1978, and was associated with Harvard from his student days (1930) to his death in 2000. He was active in many areas of philosophy but I want to talk about him regarding foundational thinking, exemplified by Descartes, where you doubt everything until you reach some indisputable, irreducable truth then build your worldview on that foundation.

Quine was not the only one to point out the obvious problem, people don't agree on the starting point. For Descartes the starting point was reason and the fact that he was a thinking being. For Calvin it was that God is all powerful and all knowing. For a muslim it would be that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet, and so on...

Quine pointed out an additional problem regarding foundational thinking. Almost no one's beliefs are assembled that way. For our worldview, our system of beliefs and values, Quine posited a grand metaphor, the web of belief.

Imagine a giant, tangled web in three dimensions, or four if you will, with knots or nodes everywhere two or more strands intersect. Each node is an idea, a concept, a memory or experience, and the strands between nodes are the relationships between ideas, usually mutually supporting or reinforcing. Toward the outside of this web are nodes of personal experience and uncomplicated facts. Deeper in the interior, with many more connections, are the deeper thoughts, such as basic values of our culture that we learned at an early age, strong commitments we have made based on experience and reflection, issues of vital self-interest, and so on.

Each person strives to have coherence, where a great many nodes are interconnected and in harmony, and consistency, where few if any ideas or experiences contradict one another. If a new fact or new idea threatens core beliefs a complex process is necessary, adjusting numerous connections, before the core belief is modified or the new matter explained and contained.

Everyone has a web of belief and no two are identical. People in the same family may have belief systems that are similar, people of the same culture or country have beliefs that are generally more similar than in comparison to people in another culture, and people in the same century would be more similar when in comparison to people in another century.

Some overlap in webs of belief is needed for communication. Two educated, middle class Americans could communicate well even if one is an atheist and the other a believer. There would be some areas where they just couldn't understand one another. If one of them tried to communicate with an Australian aborigine, or for that matter a 1st Century Judean, it would be a lot harder.

3. Implications

Quine's web of belief helps us understand Wittgenstein's statement about not understanding a talking lion. Words mean slightly different things to different people. They evoke different connections in the web of belief, different associations. The more complex the idea or experience, the more different the individual perspective. Our ability to communicate and our ability to comprehend communication are limited, and those limitations are related to our culture, our experience, our own perspective on reality, our language, and any number of other factors.

God knows how he made us. He knows the limitations of human language and our ability to comprehend. I believe the truth He reveals in scripture, the words he inspired, were specially constructed by God to be understandable by a target audience, the original community for which a text was written. Context is vital. A message that is universal without specific meaning to any one community could be devoid of meaning, or worse, susceptible to misunderstanding.

I can imagine an inerrantist objecting: "I read Genesis chapter 1 and it says the world was created in six days. What's complicated about six days? What's not to understand?" Well, when the story was originally constructed, perhaps 4000 years ago, for an audience of mostly illiterate shepherds and farmers in Israel, who had never heard of any kind of science (because the Greeks had not invented it yet and certainly not the science of geology), what did it mean to them? I suggest what the story meant to its original audience was that God was the creator, the source of all things, that He created in an orderly manner, that His creation is good, and that He is sovereign over his creation. Claims about geological time would not have any particular meaning for such folks.

The inerrantist can insist: "Who cares what they understood? The text can be true for them and contain other truths for us." Maybe so, but God knows us. He created us as hearers with significant limitations and without the capacity to grasp absolute truth. The idea that God expressed truths in concrete situations, in context, seems more consistent with the way He created us.

Furthermore, imposing your own view on the text - that its truth is universal without regard to the original intent of the human writer or the understanding of the original audience - can lead to unnecessary problems. You may end up finding "truth" about a topic where God did not choose to offer an opinion. Bible-based Christianity, employing the third approach, has no quarrel with the geological or biological sciences, or with evolution, but people who impose their own preconception of what scripture is about do have a conflict.

B. Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal

The Pentecostal renewal at the start of the 20th Century and the Charismatic renewal starting around mid-century gave a new dimension to experience of the Christian faith. It gave believers a sense of a living God, present and active in their lives, with whom they communicate back and forth. In the church community people hear from God via prophecy and anointed preaching. In personal and prayer life people hear from God via dreams, visions, flashes of insight, ideas spontaneously formed in the mind, and a number of other means.

To me these kinds of experience give a tentative insight into the process by which scripture was generated. I imagine that scripture was written when people strongly devoted to God felt an urgency to write on some particular topic or issue. The Spirit then was involved in generating their ideas and shaping their words. I am not equating the sermons of today, or the prophecies by church leaders of today, with scripture, but I am saying our experience today with anointed sermons, prophecy in the church, personal discernment or insight, and so on make the process of generating scripture seem more explainable, more comprehensible. Before the Pentecostal / Charismatic renewal the generation of scripture was a total mystery. All we could imagine was God dictated and the words appeared.

From decades within the Pentecostal / Charismatic movement I can make a couple observations. One is that receiving a word from God can be hard to understand, that is you cannot know for sure where the dividing line is between what the Spirit of God has inspired and where the human component, the mind of the person bearing the message, is involved. God knows but we cannot be absolutely sure. Testing, judgment, experience, skepticism, and consulting with Christian advisers can all be helpful to know what a word form God really means to you and how much you should rely on it. What this implies to me is not that scripture is somehow untrustworthy but that the human element is there and needs to be considered as you ponder the meaning of a text.

A second observation is that every communication from God, at least in my experience, is specific, concrete, and addressed to an issue or concern of importance to the individual or the community. I have not been exposed to general messages from God on universal topics. It has always been about something specific that mattered to a target audience of one or more. That has become my initial operating assumption as I approach a passage of scripture as well. The two observations together imply that overall context is absolutely vital for understanding.

C. Apocalyptic Literature and Theology

Imagine you could sit down with a group of people in Jerusalem 2000 years ago to talk about religious ideas. Modern scholarship, by studying writings from that era, gives us a pretty good idea of what people were thinking in that distant time and place. As I discuss the fruits of this scholarship, I am indebted to Prof. Ron Allen of Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, who covered apocalyptic theology in several of his excellent New Testament classes.

The Old Testament canon, the books of the Old Testament, stopped being written centuries before Christ. Evidently prophecy ended; weird guys in odd clothes no longer proclaimed (at least with any credibility) to speak for God. But in those centuries Jewish religious writing did not cease, in fact it poured out. There was a great deal of theological speculation and it formed the background, the cultural and religious milieu, in which Jesus preached and conducted his ministry.

This is very important because Jesus did not conduct his preaching and teaching in a vacuum. He spoke in ways the people could understand, not just the language but the currency of ideas, concepts, points of view and so forth that people of his time held routinely.

1. What Apocalyptic Means

"Apocalyptic" immediately brings to mind end-of-the-world cataclysm and that imagery is well deserved. But the word itself simply means revelation. The Greek word apokalupto (spelled phonetically) means reveal or make clear.

An apocalypse is a type of literature in which some figure, usually prestigious or exalted, passes along otherwise secret knowledge. For example the Book of Enoch, a short book written roughly in the 2d Century BC, was purportedly written by Enoch, the grandfather of Noah, and the 7th generation of human counting Adam. Enoch "walked with God" so he was one of the good guys (Genesis 5) and he also had enormous authority because of his antiquity. The book of Enoch, like most apocalypses, is not scripture. It's authorship is obviously (to us) made up, in order to impress. But the authors are not always made-up. The most famous apocalypse is Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, written by John, a servant of Jesus Christ. John himself is not necessarily a prestigious or authoritative figure, but what he writes was revealed to him by an angel, direct from heaven. That's pretty high on the authority scale.

Frequently the author indicates he received the revelation in a dream, a trance, or a vision. Daniel chapters 7 - 12 is an apocalypse, an example of the specific literary genre, and Daniel repeatedly says the information came to him in "a dream and visions" (Dan 7:1), "a vision" (8:1), "a trance" (8:18), "a vision" (10:7), and so forth.

Apocalyptic literature is extensive and diverse, so no one book embodies all the concepts that are common in the genre. Yet one way or another the texts all relate to the same topics.

2. Jewish Apocalyptic Theology

Centuries before Christ, when the Kingdom of Judah was still intact, and even for some years after the Babylonian exile, there were three general theological traditions in Judaism; wisdom, law, and prophecy. Wisdom literature, perhaps best exemplified by Proverbs, embodied the idea that God revealed Himself and His will in His creation and in the behavior of His creatures, including people. The law tradition held that God revealed Himself and His will in the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. Prophecy held that God revealed His will in the words of men whom he inspired to speak, such as Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and so on.

More than a century after the return from exile these three traditions evolved into two. The wisdom and law traditions grew together. A forerunner is Psalm 19. Both traditions shared the perspective that God had revealed what humankind needed to live properly, the world would continue on basically unchanged into the future, and the task of people was to learn God's will and live accordingly. This tradition tended to appeal to people with education or social status, although everyone in society was generally aware of the requirements of the law.

Beginning just before the exile and to a greater degree after Babylon, prophecy tended to focus on re-establishment of the Kingdom with its capital in Jerusalem. It was not enough that Jerusalem continue to exist as a vassal state with a small territory around it. Jerusalem was to have a glorious future, while its enemies would be brought low. Examples may be found in Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 38-39, Joel 3 and other Old Testament books.

The years went by and that didn't happen. Jerusalem was conquered and oppressed by Greeks and Romans, Egyptians and Syrians (both of which had Macedonian royal dynasties). Prophecy may have ended but the prophetic tradition carried on, struggling with this problem and generating extensive apocalyptic literature. The prophetic / apocalyptic tradition was universally understood but generated greater interest among the less educated, more credulous segments of society.

a. The core issue

Apocalyptic theology struggled with the issue of why Israel was in such low circumstances. The promises of God, and the covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants were not being fulfilled. The prophecies of glorious restoration after the exile in Babylon were not coming to pass. Godless nations prospered and grew ever more powerful. The God of Israel was the creator and God of the universe, all powerful. Why did He not act?

This is the problem of evil. Today we ask why bad things happen to good people. Two thousand years ago the Jews had a much more nationalistic focus. Their greatest concern was the collective well-being of the nation of Israel. Today evil in the world is an excuse for agnosticism or atheism. People say, if there was a God he would not let the terrible things happen that do happen. Two thousand years ago Jews were believers; agnosticism was not an option. The problem of evil had special intensity.

I'll give an example from the literature. In the Apocrypha, which is a collection of writings found in Catholic Bibles between the Old and New Testaments, we find 2 Esdras. The book was purportedly written by Ezra, a leading figure in post-exile Jerusalem, although the book dates from centuries later. In chapter 1 Ezra responds to a prophetic call, placing the text within the prophetic tradition, then in chapter 3 it gets down to Ezra's complaint. He is troubled by the desolation of Zion in comparison with the "wealth of those who lived in Babylon." In chapter 4 (v. 23) he focuses on "those things that we daily experience: why Israel has been given over the gentiles in disgrace; why the people whom you loved has been given over to godless tribes, and the law of our ancestors has been brought to destruction and the written covenants no longer exist."

Ezra, in the text, looked forward to a new age when everything would be set right. Apocalyptic theology generally explained this problem of evil with its view of history. Unlike the law-wisdom tradition, apocalyptic theologians saw history as moving toward a point when God would intervene in the world with great power. Taken as a whole the apocalyptic writings provide a detailed picture of history from (they assert) God's perspective.

b. History

Stated very simply, the answer to the problem of evil was that God will act, at the time of His choosing, to set everything right, to judge and punish evil people and nations, and to reward and bless the godly. This answer is supported by the apocalyptic perspective of history, history as it continues into the future.

In apocalyptic history there are three ages: the beginning in Eden when everything was idyllic and in accordance with God's will, the present evil age when the forces of evil and evil people are ascendant, and the age to come, the new age when God's will once again is dominant. The three ages are punctuated by two great events: the Fall when mankind lost its favored relationship with God in Eden, and the (future) day of the Lord, the day when God will act with great power to set things right.

These ages and turning points have various alternative names, for example sometimes reference to Eden is omitted and highly dualistic language is used. Reference is made to the present and the future, the old age and the new. The present evil age could be referred to as the old creation, this world, the kingdom of this world... and because the end was believed to be near, the present evil age was also referred to as these last days, or something very similar. Once you understand the overall time line, context will give you the age that is being referred to.

The transition from the old age to the new was expected to be abrupt and cataclysmic. This is the source of the end-of-the-world scenarios we associate with the word apocalypse. The literature is diverse enough that there are many variations in detail, but one way or another God Himself, His Holy Spirit, would intervene on earth. Even though the day of the Lord was primarily a collective, national event individuals knew that unless they were righteous, they would be consumed simply by being in God's presence. The Old Testament idea was that if you simply saw God you would die. To be in His presence was awesome. That's why in Jesus' day people flocked to John the Baptist, to repent and be baptized in the Jordan. In modern parlance they wanted to "get right with God." It was a matter of personal survival because the day of the Lord was immanent.

In the great day of the Lord God would judge evil doers and destroy them, bless the righteous, and restore Israel to glory. The earth would become much like Eden, a reprise of that marvelous existence.

c. Why things are so bad now

Apocalyptic theologians are the source of the New Testament view that there are evil spirits which oppress people, that they are arranged in some kind of hierarchy, that evil goes beyond mere disobedience to God, and that it is a force in the world opposing God and harming and oppressing people.

In the Genesis story of Adam and Eve the snake is a deceiving villain, but from the text we do not know more. The snake's identity and role are not further developed. The notion of a devil and a host of evil spirits was not present in the early days. Israel's understanding of the nature of evil grew over time.

Israel is famous as the source of monotheism, but in the centuries prior to the Babylonian exile monotheism was a functional matter. There were other gods but your allegiance was owed to the God of Israel (the first of the Ten Commandments). Other gods might rule over other nations, but the God of Israel outranked all the others. We get a glimpse of this in Psalm 82 where God sits at the head of a divine council. There were also deceiving spirits, for example King Saul is deceived in 1 Samuel 28, but not much is said about them.

About the time of the Babylonian exile Israel became truly monotheistic, believing no other gods existed. Isaiah is particularly forceful on this point, see chapters 44 and 45. But this pure monotheism brought with it a conceptual problem, namely, why is there evil? The apocalyptic theologians developed the idea of an adversary to God, the evil one who seeks his own dominion in place of God's. The adversary is not a god - there is only one God - but a creature, a powerful spiritual being, in rebellion against God.

It is the apocalyptic thinkers who characterize the story of Adam and Eve as The Fall, in which humans are deceived by the adversary, disobey God, and thus surrender their intended role of dominion over creation to the deceiver, who usurps humanity's role in God's created order. It is the adversary and legions of his minions who now exercise over creation the authority they have stolen, oppress humanity and keep people separate from God, and generally work to implement their own evil intentions.

In the apocalyptic perspective things are especially bad "now." Now is whenever the person happened to be writing or speaking. Now was always regarded as being near the end, the Day of the Lord. Things were especially bad and evil especially active now. The adversary and his minions are aware of the direction of history. They see the end coming and react with fear and hatred, redoubling their efforts to implement all manner of evil.

So the apocalyptics see the world as having a very active spiritual dimension populated with all manner of forces or beings, who oppress humanity and are the source of all manner of evil. These are not gods but are spiritual beings, creatures in rebellion against their creator. Individual disobedience to God's laws is still a basis for human culpability, but evil is primarily an oppressive force acting against people, a force from which we need to be liberated.

The focus is on this world and its problems. Even though there was a spiritual dimension to reality, it was what happened in this world, the world of space and time, that mattered. There is a heaven and apocalyptic writers have made many a spiritual journey to heaven to learn what the future holds, but heaven is a peripheral matter. What mattered is what will happen to Israel in the here and now.

d. Agents of God

There were diverse ideas about how the day of the Lord would occur. God, by His Holy Spirit was expected to intervene in history with great power, fire and devastation. But He would also act through an agent, someone specifically anointed for the purpose of implementing God's dominion. (Messiah and Christ are words meaning "the anointed one.") The nature of that agent is where the diversity of ideas comes in.

Even though much apocalyptic thinking is found in books written after the Old Testament canon, the Jews searched the Hebrew scriptures for clues about the identity of and events in the life of the messiah. The messiah was expected to be a great military leader who would conquer Israel's enemies and institute rule by Israel from Jerusalem. Probably the most common expectation was that the messiah would be a descendant of David who would restore the Davidic dynasty. Another possibility was a great national leader like Moses. Such a leader was promised in Deuteronomy 18:15.

A third possibility was that God would send an agent directly from heaven, although the agent would have the appearance of a human being. This is the "one like the son of man" prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14. In any event whatever form the messiah took, his appearing was expected to change everything in a fairly short span of time, and the transition was expected to be violent and cataclysmic.

e. Imagery and metaphors

Jewish apocalypticism provides many images and metaphors which appear again in the New Testament, such as Judgment Day when, finally, justice is dispensed, the idea of a great banquet where those acceptable to God celebrate and enjoy plenty, and the idea of a kingdom. The exact word "kingdom" almost never appears in apocalyptic literature but the idea of national revival and glory for Israel most often was associated with restoration of the Davidic dynasty.

3. Christian Apocalyptic Theology

[ I have run out of space on this blog entry. Please go to Bible Study Today (continued, part 2) ]

On the more numerous center and right, Jesus died for our sins, to pay for our sins, to suffer the punishment due to us for our sins. Most denominations emphasize the grace of God in this self-giving sacrifice but some fundamentalists emphasize the depravity of mankind which necessitated the sacrifice.

I. An Alternate Explanation

In my old church, the month before I moved to Florida, I was asked to give the short message preparing for communion. What better thing to talk about than remembering what Christ accomplished? So I gave a short message about Christ's death and resurrection. The result was dead silence and no interest from the congregation, but later in the month at a men's meeting the Pastor and the senior elder prayed that I would not be led astray by too much scholarship or confused about the Christian message by my academic interest in the Bible.

What I had done was to offer an alternate explanation of why Christ died. First I looked at the creation story in Genesis 1 (verses 26-30):

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness;
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.
God blessed them and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it;
and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

I regard the creation accounts in Genesis first and foremost as theology, and from this passage I conclude that God has created a kind of four-tier world, with God at the top, then humans exercising dominion over animals and plants, then animals over plants, using plants for food (verse 30). [There are myriad sermons about humans being in the image of God. Biblically "image of God" relates to the exercise of dominion.]

In the passage not a whole lot is said about God being at the top of the hierarchy. It is assumed. But if anybody misses that point, we get the story of Adam and Eve in the immediately following chapters. So God's original plan is for humans to exercise awesome authority, within the constraints of His will.

The story of Adam and Eve introduces the serpent, whom Christians regard as the deceiver, the adversary, the devil. There is a spiritual dimension to reality, and the gospels assume it is populated by evil spirits as well as those of God. Prof. Chuck Kraft's book "I Give You Authority" makes it clear Jesus has authority over spirits, and when we follow Jesus as Lord, we do to.

I hope to do a review of Kraft's book soon in this blog. In any event Kraft's biblical theology shows the spirit dimension is part of the hierarchy God designed, and is lower than and subject to man in the original plan. When man gets outside God's will, the hierarchy fails. Spirits deceive and torment us and the environment is no longer in harmony. The world is a mess and humans are miserable.

The great challenge to God's order, the great challenge in history from God's perspective, is for humans to choose to follow God's plan, to exercise dominion within the constraints of His will. Now you and I might just say, "Okay, we'll go along with God's design." But we and our forefathers have failed so often, so consistently, that the commitment must be tested. A man must be found who will demonstrate that he places God's will above his own even in the greatest trials and deceptions, temptations and torment.

Jesus Christ was that man. His accomplishment was to always place the Father's will above his own, when he was famished after his fast, when he was tempted in the wilderness, when he was betrayed by Judas and abandoned by most of the disciples, when he was falsely accused, when he was tortured by Roman soldiers and when he was crucified. "Not my will but thine," he prayed.

Because Jesus always placed the Father's will above his own, God's original plan and humanity's role in that plan, could be implemented. Jesus was righteous so God was just when He raised him from the dead to eternal life. Jesus now lives and reigns over all things in heaven and over those on earth who acknowledge him as Lord. The day is coming when what is true in heaven will be true throughout the earth. Now we who acknowledge Jesus as Lord are also in harmony with God's design for creation. The Kingdom of God will become the embodiment of God's design for creation.

So from our personal perspective, yes, Jesus died for our sins. We are estranged from God because we do not always put His will above our own. Jesus, through his life and death, enables us to be acceptable to God, and his resurrection both shows the richness of that blessing and makes Jesus a vital force in our lives today.

From the perspective of overall human history, Jesus' life, death and resurrection were a triumph in which a "second Adam" or "final Adam" fulfilled God's plan and intention for His creation. Now, by acknowledging Jesus as Lord of our lives, we all have the opportunity to live in fellowship with God, exercising dominion over creation.

II. A Brief History of Soteriology

When I converted to Christianity in my early 30s, the two ideas of the atonement I describe at the start of this blog entry were all that I was exposed to.

Because I was over 30 (barely), had two university degrees, had a rather independent and studious personality, and wanted to be totally confident in the truth and efficacy of this new faith I was exploring, I resolved to study and understand the Bible and the Christian faith.

I read the New Testament, starting at Matthew 1:1 and to my surprise neither theory of the atonement was directly expressed. What the church, at least the more conservative church which preached the Christ-died-for-your-sins message, presented as the crux of the faith, was somehow hidden or stuck in the back pages. Today with hindsight and experience, I know where to find passages that support the theology. Also, if you're already convinced of the theology, reading the New Testament will not make you change your mind. But but the message wasn't there front and center. Instead Jesus focused on something called the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God. What was going on?

I was very fortunate that Indianapolis has an academically excellent graduate seminary, Christian Theological Seminary (CTS), which allowed lay people such as myself to audit classes for a nominal fee. I enrolled in a series of Bible classes over several years.

One New Testament class specifically addressed soteriology and we studied a book entitled Christus Victor, by Gustaf Aulen. Sadly I no longer have the book because I loaned it to another student who never returned it. It is out of print. So I must speak from memory.

Aulen was a Swedish Lutheran bishop writing in the 1930s. He speaks for himself, not the Lutheran church. His book is essentially an historical study of how Christians explained the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection. Aulen identified three major theories:

- The Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement

This theory was presented in 1099 by Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, in his book Why God Became Man, (Cur Deus Homo as it was written in Latin). You can still buy Cur Deus Homo from Amazon.com and the book is available on the internet (the copyright expired about 8 centuries ago). It's very short and clearly written. Interestingly it contains no citations to scripture.

Anslem employs various metaphors. There is the idea of debt and satisfaction of debt. What we owe God is to be subject to His will. When we sin, that creates a debt to God, a debt which must be repaid. But it is not enough just to repay. At this point Anslem slides into a metaphor reminiscent of criminal law; in some sense sin injures God so it is not enough to pay the debt. We "must give back even more than we took away because of the injury inflicted."

Sin, even more seriously, dishonors God. This evokes the metaphor of feudalism. Circa 1100 AD western Europe's social and political order was based on feudalism. Society had a strict hierarchy and everyone owed duties to those above them. The king was at the top of the pyramid. In this system honor was the most important commodity. So God was like a feudal king to whom all owed honor and fealty. Our sins impugned God's honor, and when we dishonored God it was a very grave offense.

Anselm then addresses the logical question, God can do whatever He wants so why doesn't He just remit sin by mercy alone? Anselm's response was, sin without punishment means "something inordinate is allowed to pass" and it is "not seemly for God to let pass something inordinate in His kingdom." Hence it was necessary, in order to "pay" for sin, to sacrifice the life of a perfect man.

This made sense to people living in a feudal system, and the theory has great staying power. It makes sense to a lot of people today. The satisfaction theory is sometimes called the objective theory of the atonement because it addresses an objective problem, the grave consequences of sin.

- The Subjective Theory of the Atonement

This theory was espoused by Abelard, a professor of theology at the University of Paris, a decade or two after Anslem. In the middle ages theology was the premier academic area of study and Paris had the greatest of the universities.

Abelard is most famous for his love affair with Heloise. He was a professor in his mid 30s (middle aged by the standard of the day) and she was a precocious 13 year old attending classes at the university, the niece and ward of a prominent local churchman. They became lovers and Heloise gave birth to a son. Her uncle was furious. Without interference they would have lived happily ever after, but the uncle hired ruffians who mutilated Abelard's sex organs. Heloise joined a convent and Abelard became a monk. They corresponded by letter, and those letters are some of the earliest records of romantic love.

Back to theology, Abelard argued Jesus made his self-giving sacrifice to demonstrate his love for us and to motivate us, by example, to love God and our fellow man, and to live sacrificially for others. The purpose of the sacrifice was subjective, to affect our attitudes, values and goals.

- Christus Victor

This is the historical theory which Gustaf Aulen, the author, favored, although nobody in the Lutheran Church agreed with him. Aulen cites various early church fathers and shows that before Anselm the church regarded Christ's death and resurrection as a victory over sin, death, and the devil. Jesus obviously triumphed over sin because he did not sin. Because he was righteous, death had no power over him. And further, they theorized, the devil believed he had triumphed when Jesus was crucified, but then was shocked to realize his utter defeat, when Jesus was resurrected.

To elaborate just a little, the idea is that our sin - and we all sin - gives the devil power and authority over us. In a sense were are all trapped in the devil's realm. Jesus came to change all that. The devil recognized Jesus as God's anointed, and believed if he (the devil) could destroy Jesus' ministry and Jesus himself, then the devil would face no more challenge to his evil rule over this world. Only too late the devil realized, at the time of the resurrection, that because Jesus was utterly righteous the grave, death, could not hold him. Now nothing could stop the resurrected, living Jesus from establishing the reign of God. As more and more people acknowledge Jesus as Lord of their lives, the kingdom of God will continue to expand. The devil was facing ultimate destruction.

III. My Comments on the Three Theories

Anselm.

Pro: The satisfaction theory of the atonement is triumphant in all but the most liberal churches today. The New Testament says Christ died for our sins, and Anselm is regarded as providing the details on why that was necessary and how it works. The theory is so widely accepted that it has become one of the defining concepts of Christianity.

The theory is internally logical, straightforward, and easy to explain.

The theory focuses on Jesus' crucifixion, which is the same focus as the gospels. The gospels devote about half their chapters to Jesus' last week of life.

The theory focuses on how people are saved, rather than big picture topics like history from God's perspective or inaugurating the kingdom of God. Like the T shirt slogan says, "It's all about me."

As you read the New Testament you find verses that seem to support the theory. In Matthew 1:21 the archangel tells Joseph to take Mary as his wife and to name her baby Jesus, "for he will save his people from their sins." [Jesus in Hebrew means savior.] Luke's gospel describes the resurrected Jesus explaining the scriptures to his disciples saying, "... repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations" (24:47). In the gospel of John, John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and says, "Here is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29).

In Acts, a book on the history of the very early church, several sermons urge listeners to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 3:19, 10:43, 13:38, 22:16).

The theory gets its strongest support from Romans chapter 3. Paul says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23). The remedy for Jews and gentiles is the same, salvation through Jesus Christ, whose death provides atonement (3:25).

Finally in 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul comes right out and says it, "Christ died for our sins."

So what's not to like about the satisfaction theory?

Con: There are two general groups of issues to explore with the satisfaction theory: theoretical / theological issues, and how well it fits with scripture.

a. Anselm does not cite scripture. He presents his theory as a work of intellectual analysis, explaining why incarnation and blood sacrifice were necessary. Several features of the theory trouble me.

For Anselm, sin is an issue between us and God. It is a matter of our bad conduct causing harm to God, which God then insists must be paid for or somehow compensated for. Biblical complexity is lost. From the New Testament it is true that sin separates us from God, but there is also a sense that sin is a force that entangles and binds us, from which we need to be freed. In addition sin makes us vulnerable to oppression and abuse by the evil one.

By removing the devil from the picture and narrowing the cast of characters to two, sinning mankind and the one high trinitarian God, Anslelm sets the stage for the modern viewpoint that there is no spiritual dimension to everyday reality. Salvation is an objective matter of debt and payment. This is different from the New Testament understanding of reality.

Because our own bad conduct breaches a duty to God and makes Christ's death necessary, the satisfaction theory makes guilt a much more prominent emotion and motivation than was previously the case.

According to Anselm God is inflexible; in a way He is not even sovereign in His own domain. God cannot violate His own rules. He cannot act with mercy and forgiveness, unless an appropriate blood sacrifice is made. This is inconsistent with the Old Testament, where God forgave Abraham, David, and many more, even the nation of Israel after the Babylonian exile. If we accept Anselm, the God of the Old Testament is more merciful, gracious and loving than God as portrayed in the New Testament!

Finally Anselm ignores the resurrection, and focuses exclusively on the crucifixion. The New Testament almost always mentions the two together. The resurrection is the crowning event of Christ's ministry on behalf of mankind.

In fairness to Anselm he was doing what theologians and missionaries do routinely, that is explain the gospel to a local culture which differs from the culture of Judea in the First Century. If missionaries go to a newly discovered tribe in New Guinea or the Amazon, they have to figure out new ways to explain the gospel so that it is understandable to the people. I'm not sure what the word is for that process, I call it contextualizing the gospel.

It's not just missionaries to backward tribes who do this. I remember various books in seminary. One was by a former missionary to Japan, who tried to develop a theology to explain Jesus to a shame-based culture, as distinct from our western guilt-based one. I recall a book that made Christianity acceptable to existentialists, a philosophy that was pervasive in Europe in the mid 20th Century. I also recall a book by Jurgen Moltmann, a German theologian, explaining Christianity to people who accepted the philosophy of Hegel. In the US nobody cares about Hegel but evidently in Germany a great many university-educated people believe that philosopher. Also liberation theology is Christianity for marxists, and so on.

Anselm did a fine job making the gospel plausible to feudal society. My assertion is he succeeded beyond all imagination, and now the satisfaction theory makes it difficult to read the New Testament with understanding.

b. Scriptural issues. Even if Anselm does not cite scripture, supporters today claim the doctrine is based on the Bible. In any event Protestants must test the theory by measuring it against scripture.

The theory is really important, so if it's biblical it should be right up front, explained early and in detail in the first books of the New Testament. It is not. It's just not enough to have one reference in Matthew which seems to have more to do with explaining Jesus' name than describing the purpose of his ministry, or putting the topic off in Luke until near the end of the book, after God raised Jesus from the dead.

John the Baptist's exclamation in John ("Behold the lamb of God...") is a curious statement. In the Old Testament a goat, not a lamb, was sacrificed for sin. In John, Jesus is portrayed as the passover lamb (among many other metaphors). The passover lamb was slaughtered not as a sin offering but in preparation for a ritual feast that signified the solidarity of God's people, and to provide blood for a sign (on the doorpost) so the angel would not kill their firstborn. John was employing an evocative but mixed metaphor that is not about paying for debts or crimes.

Speaking of John the Baptist, both Mark and Luke say he proclaimed "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" Mark 1:5, Luke 3:3. This was separate from any kind of sacrifice, years before the crucifixion.

The New Testament says a lot about sin and forgiveness of sin. If you assume the theory explains what sin is all about, the New Testament supports the theory. But that assumption is hard to hold on to because the New Testament does not use Anselm's words and concepts. Sin is not explained as a breach of duty to God, or as dishonor to God. Neither Christ nor the gospel writers explain Christ's ministry as coming to "pay for" sin. So the theory doesn't hit the biblical bulls eye.

Even in Romans where chapter 3 provides the strongest support for the satisfaction theory, chapters 5 - 8 talk about sin and death "exercising dominion" over humanity. In chapter 5 Paul introduces his idea of Jesus as a second or final Adam, negating the consequences of the Adam's fall. These Pauline concepts are more consistent with the Christus Victor theory than the satisfaction theory.

It is Paul who writes in Galatians 1:4 "... the Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins to free us from the present evil age..." and wrote in Colossians 1:13 "He [God] has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved son." I don't claim to fully understand Paul, but he says enough about alternate powers and forces oppressing us that I think his letters are at least as supportive of the Christus Victor theory as the satisfaction theory.

Abelard.

Pro: The subjective theory makes God a nice guy. It avoids the sin-guilt-God of wrath-blood sacrifice complex of ideas that is offensive to civilized folks. Also, there are many New Testament passages which encourage us to live with consideration for others, and to be like Christ.

Con: Almost nothing in the Bible indicates the primary purpose of Christ's death was intended to be emotional or attitudinal.

Another serious problem is this. Logically, Christ's death had to have some underlying purpose. You do not sacrifice your life for no reason other than theater or emotional expression. You have to perceive that your sacrifice in some way, hopefully some important way, benefits the people you love, on whose behalf the sacrifice is made. Abelard doesn't say what it is Christ's death accomplishes, other than demonstrating the emotion of love. Maybe what it accomplishes is payment for sin, in which case Abelard is just a footnote to Anselm's theory. Maybe there's something else going on; I don't know what.

Christus Victor.

Before we get into pros and cons, we need to consider how to "do" theology. I've already committed to the idea that doctrine has to be consistent with and supported by scripture. But there are (at least) two ways to do that. One is to use high level reasoning, like Anselm, working with accepted ideas of the church which are generally biblical. Anselm worked with concepts like the incarnation, the Trinity, and the biblical statement that Christ died for our sins. Perhaps he perceived a flaw in the Christus Victor theory in that it gave too much of a role to the devil. From his broad scope analytical process he developed a new theory which he expressed in metaphors understandable to 12th Century western Europeans.

The Christus Victor theory, on the other hand, sort of grew up out of knowledge of the New Testament and early church traditions. It was neither developed nor expressed systematically. The idea of conflict between two kingdoms, the kingdom of God which Jesus was working to establish, and "this present evil age" which opposed and impeded him, fits very well with Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and Paul's letters. As far as the details, the devil's role, and various logical interconnections, well, they weren't sufficiently developed to satisfy medieval theologians.

I hope the words I use do not confuse the issue; I would say Anselm used a deductive process starting with a few first principles then reasoning to develop the full theory. Christus Victor came from an inductive process, building on numerous biblical passages to infer a general view of what Jesus' ministry was about.

Deductive, systematic theology has reigned supreme in the church from the middle ages pretty much up to the present. When I was in seminary in the 90s students were just beginning to become disenchanted with the requirement of three semesters of Systematics, and Systematic Theology professors were responding with fewer lectures on grand concepts and more on current social and political issues.

In my opinion the prestige of Systematic Theology has diminished because so much has been learned about the Bible in the last century or so that the inductive method of doing theology offers a great deal of promise, even of power if you agree ideas are powerful.

The "Pro" of the Christus Victor theory is that it is more consistent with the New Testament than the other two historical theories. The "Con" is that so much scholarship and insight into the Bible text has developed in recent centuries that the theory could benefit from much updating and modification.

- [I need to offer many Bible verses to show how this theory is grounded in scripture] -

I need a whole additional blog entry to summarize advances in understanding the New Testament, and to round out or update that theory. Speaking generally, if you want to "be saved" - if you want the benefits of Christianity in this world and the next - you need to place God's will above your own (Anselm is right about that), believe Jesus was raised from the dead, that he lives and reigns, acknowledge him as lord of your life, and generally be connected to / affiliated with him.

I have three reasons for studying this phrase. First, judging from the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - it was the primary topic of Jesus' teaching and describes the primary purpose of Jesus' ministry. Since in Jesus' own mind the Kingdom of God was what his ministry was all about, we definitely want to understand it.

Second, the Kingdom of God as Jesus described it is very similar to the goals of our pastor, Rob Stiles. He wants us to have a greater sense of God's presence in our lives, and to receive the kinds of things Jesus brought to people, such as healing, emotional wholeness, dealing with problems in life, coping with evil and so on.

Pastor Stiles is following a Vineyard tradition. John Wimber, one of the founders of Vineyard, was converted by reading the Bible, and when he first went to church he asked "When do we get to do the stuff?" By "the stuff" he meant healings, "signs" and "miracles" - the kind of stuff Jesus did. In the Vineyard we pray for healing, not only physical but emotional, and for the healing of relationships. Pastor Stiles wants to do that. Per Matthew, Mark and Luke, "the stuff" is an outward demonstration of the rule of God.

A third reason to study the Kingdom is that the phrase has lost much of its meaning since Jesus' time. Some of this can be seen in the Epistles, when Christianity spread to gentiles in the Roman Empire. The Romans were a touch sensitive about other kingdoms which might rival their own, and to avoid confusion missionaries to Roman territory primarily talked about the lordship of Jesus Christ.

In the modern church, "the Kingdom of God" seems to be an orphan phrase. We don't remember the power and content it had when Jesus spoke about it. As a result people can get away with appropriating the phrase for their purposes, which may be primarily secular. For example Christians on the left like to use the phrase to imply God's endorsement of their political agenda. By reviewing the New Testament usage, we can see what the kingdom is really about.

As best I can find, the phrase "kingdom of God" does not appear in the Old Testament, and appears rarely if at all in the intertestamental literature. When Jesus used it, the phrase was new. Yet when Jesus used it, no one thought it particularly odd and everyone felt they knew what it meant. After all, the kingdom of David and his dynasty was under God. David's subservience to God was at the core of his legitimacy and popularity. In Jesus' time Romans governed Israel as conquerors, but the high priests in the Jerusalem temple exercised authority in religious and civil matters. In theory, they ruled in God's name. "Kingdom of God" instantly had meaning to Jewish listeners, the challenge was to understand exactly what meaning Jesus had for the phrase.

The earliest texts of the New Testament are written in Greek. The Greek word translated kingdom is basileia which can mean kingdom, kingship, royal power, royal rule, or reign. It would be just as appropriate to translate Jesus' words as "reign of God" or "rule of God".

The gospel of Matthew uses the phrase "kingdom of God" just three times (Matt 6:33, 21:3 & 43), but uses "kingdom of heaven" much more frequently, perhaps 50 times. The gospel was written for an ethnically Jewish community of Christians. Because the Ten Commandments forbid taking the Lord's name in vain, some Jews felt it was best not to even use the word "God" in their conversation. We see this kind of thing at Jesus' trial as described in the gospel of Mark, where the priests ask Jesus if he is the son of the blessed. It's clear "the blessed" is a reference to God. In Matthew, if you look at the three verses, along with those where kingdom of heaven is used, I think you'll agree the two phrases are interchangeable.

Mark, a much shorter book, still uses the phrase 16 times, and Luke is like Matthew using "kingdom of God" about 50 times. John only uses it twice, and I will discuss that. In the balance of the New Testament the phrase continues to be used, but much less frequently than in the first three gospels.

So what does the New Testament say?

Let's look first at Mark. Even though it comes second, most scholars regard it as the oldest or earliest gospel. Things happen fast in Mark's narrative. We learn a bit about John the Baptist, then Jesus is baptized not only by John but by the Holy Spirit. Two verses describe Jesus tempted in the wilderness, then he begins his ministry. Look at Mark 1:14 & 15:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.
Repent and believe in the gospel.

Jesus' very first sentence , the initiation of his entire ministry, proclaims the Kingdom of God is now present, and, essentially that is good news for those who repent and believe.

In Mark Jesus doesn't do much talking or explaining; he demonstrates, he acts. While still in chapter 1 he calls disciples, casts out a demon, heals many at Peter's house and casts out many demons, proclaims the message in other towns, and cleanses a leper. Mark points out, in the very first exorcism, that these acts are demonstrations of Jesus' authority.

So I conclude just from chapter 1, Jesus is God's agent, his role / the purpose of his ministry is to usher in the rule of God, and the nature of that rule is to break the power of forces of evil and bless repentant, believing people with freedom from all manner of oppression and disability. Furthermore, this is a reign that will spread. Jesus very first act, after proclaiming his mission, is to call disciples.

For me to prove all this would take hours of discussion about the whole book of Mark. Let me quote a seminary professor who wrote a book entitled "Mark As Story An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel" Even though he was a believer, for the purpose of his book the author, David Rhoads, examined Mark simply as literature. He found a coherent narrative, and said, "Mark's story is unified around one overall goal: Jesus struggles to establish the rule of God in the face of obstacles and opposition."

You know the opposition - spiritual forces, scribes and pharisees, high priests, even Judas. Some of the obstacles were misunderstanding by the disciples, the disciples seeking political or military power, or simple lack of faith. Often people supporting or following Jesus saw in him the hope for fulfillment of their own political or social objectives, especially throwing off Roman rule and establishing a Jewish theocracy. That was not Jesus' ministry and not what he meant by the kingdom of God.

Matthew is where we find the Lord's Prayer (6:9-13). It is also in Luke but the version in Matthew is used most. We all know the words, but how much do we think about the meaning?

Our father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name
Thy kingdom come, they will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven...

The very first thing Jesus prays for, and teaches us to pray for, is for the kingdom of God to come. This is completely consistent with Mark's story, where Jesus is working to establish the rule of God.

The statement of purpose as Jesus launches his ministry is consistent as well. Matthew gives us more information than Mark, such as a birth narrative, the wise men, escape to Egypt... but chapter 4 picks up the story of John the Baptist, the anointing of the spirit, and the temptation of Jesus. Verse 17 has Jesus stating the purpose of his ministry,

From that time Jesus began to preach saying,
"Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Similarly when Jesus sends out the disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, disease and sickness, then gave the following instructions:

Go nowhere among the gentiles, and enter no town of the samaritans.
but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
As you go, proclaim the good news, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons... (10:5-8)

There is an equivalence between the kingdom of heaven and miracles Jesus, and his disciples, perform.

Most of the parables, too, are about the kingdom of heaven. Many parables start with the phrase, "For the kingdom of heaven is like..."

Chapter 13 is rich with the parable of the sower, of weeds among the grain, of the mustard seed, of yeast leavening the flower. Let's look at the parable of weeds among grain. You know the story; an enemy sows weeds in a wheat field. The workers ask if they should go pull them out, but the owner says, no, wait until harvest. Jesus explains the parable to his disciples (13:37-43):

The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world,
and the good seed are the children of the kingdom,
the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil.
The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.
Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
The son of man will send his angels and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin
and all evildoers, and
they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine like the sun, in the kingdom of their father.

There is a lot going on in the gospel of Matthew. One thing is Matthew presents Jesus as a prophet, not so much as someone foretelling the future - although Jesus certainly does that - but as a spokesman for God, expressing God's viewpoint. The sermon on the mount is about righteousness and all that it takes to be fully in harmony with God's will. In this sense Jesus is portrayed as the greatest prophet, fulfilling the law by explaining how it involves not only right conduct, but the right attitude of your heart.

Nevertheless, the overall theme, the core narrative of the gospel, is the inauguration of the rule of God.

Luke is a gospel addressed to gentiles. In the first 4 verses of chapter 1 the book is dedicated to "Theophilus" which is a Greek name meaning "lover of God". Whether that's a real person or an idealized name, we don't know. But unlike Mark and Matthew, which were written for ethnically Jewish communities, the gospel of Luke is for gentiles.

That creates challenges. The intended readers (or hearers) don't know Jewish scriptures, traditions, practices, or Jewish culture. When they hear "kingdom" their first thought will be that it's about politics - or war. They will not immediately think about the heritage of David, or the priests ruling from Jerusalem over religious matters, ostensibly as God's representatives. Let's look at how Luke overcomes the problem.

The launch of Jesus' ministry is in 4:14-15

Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and a report about him spread through all the surrounding country
He began to teach in their synagogue, and was praised by everyone

But there is not the familiar quote (yet) of Jesus stating his purpose. Instead, Jesus' first public statement is the quotation from Isaiah that Pastor Stiles pointed out in one of his first sermons on the kingdom of God:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor (4:18-19)

The people of his home town reject him (4:20-30). Next he performs an exorcism (4:31-37), many healings at Simon's house (4:38-41), and only after these things does Luke give the quotation we are familiar with (4:42-44):

At daybreak he departed and went into a deserted place, and the crowds were looking for him, and when they reached him they wanted to prevent him from leaving them,
But he said to them, "I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose."
So he continued, proclaiming the message in the synagogues of Judea.

Luke presents Jesus to his gentile readers as a prince of peace (the word peace appears more often in Luke than any other New Testament book). He does tell his readers that Jesus' ministry is about the kingdom of God, but only in a side comment (not a formal speech), and only to avoid misunderstanding, after making it clear to the readers that the kingdom is about good news, helping the poor, bringing release to captives and the oppressed, and healing - not politics or insurrection.

The gospel of John differs from the first three. John does not quote Jesus' statement of purpose. The phrase "kingdom of God" only appears twice, both in this passage:

Now there was a pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews.
He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs apart from the presence of God."
Jesus answered him, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."
Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can anyone enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit... " ( John 3:1-5)

John selects different themes, images, and metaphors from the first three gospels. Jesus is presented as the word made flesh, the son who makes God known. There are powerful images, such as the lamb of God. In general, John chooses biological phrases like "new birth", "eternal life", and "abundant life". Is John historically accurate or are the other three? Jesus' ministry spanned well over a year so he could have said a lot of things and used a lot of phrases and examples. Certainly there is a different emphasis in the four gospels, and John is the most unique.

John was written years after the other three gospels, and he may have wanted to provide additional information and a different perspective. He was also tailoring the message to the needs of his community. As best we can tell, his community was almost "under siege" at least socially and emotionally. The second coming had not happened, decades had passed, and people were falling away. The larger Jewish community regarded John's community as heretics and exerted constant pressure to pull members back.

John aims more at the heart than at the head. He makes the most powerful emotional argument he can for people to maintain their allegiance to Christ.

Acts, a history of the early church beginning with Jesus' appearance after his resurrection, has 7 references to the kingdom of God (at least that I found) and, as I will discuss below, shows a change of emphasis as time passes. The first reference is particularly interesting (Acts 1:3-8):

After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking to them about the kingdom of God.
While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the father. "This," he said, "is what you have heard from me;
for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
So when they had come together they asked him, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?"
He replied, "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the father has set by his own authority.
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

When I saw the question about restoring the kingdom to Israel I thought "there they go again;" the disciples confusing what was primarily spiritual with military and political objectives. However on reflection, there is a political / sovereignty dimension to the kingdom. Ultimately Jesus will rule over all things, including government, whatever characteristics that may have after Jesus triumphs over all. The resurrection was an awesome demonstration of God's power in Christ. The disciples were logical in thinking that the final day of the Lord had come.

Jesus' answer was in essence "no". The Holy Spirit would soon come to his followers and, thus empowered, they would have plenty of work to do expanding the kingdom of God before the end came.

In the rest of Acts and the epistles I see three general categories of meaning or usage for the phrase "the kingdom of God." Jesus had died, and risen, and ascended to heaven, leaving the church to do his work. In spite of miracles, as reported in Acts, it wasn't the same. Even great leaders like Peter and Paul did not regularly match the force and effectiveness of Jesus during his ministry.

Not only leadership had changed. The context of scripture, the circumstances of communities for whom it was originally written, was different as well. The epistles were written to churches outside the Jewish homeland, in the Greek or Latin speaking Roman empire. "The kingdom of God" was an unusual phrase to most of them, and it could be easily misunderstood. Followers of Christ could easily be accused of fomenting an insurrection. So the phrase was used sparingly, on average maybe once per book, and the meaning subtly changed.

One category of usage is for the phrase to become a reference to, a shorthand phrase for the general message of salvation. In Acts 8:12 Jesus' followers have been scattered and Philip is in Samaria.

But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

We don't know exactly what was said, but it was a message with compelling content more so than a demonstration of a powerful and godly way of life. The association of the phrase "kingdom of God" with verbal presentation about Jesus is even more clear in Acts 28:23. Paul is in prison in Rome, but is allowed to talk with visitors. He calls Jewish leaders to him:

After they had set a day to meet with him, they came to him at his lodging in great numbers. From morning until evening he explained the matter to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from both the law of Moses and the prophets.

Other verses where the kingdom of God is a phrase for the gospel message are Acts 19:8, 20:25, 28:31 and Colossians 4:11.

A second category of usage is to use the phrase as a reference to the future, when Christ would return in triumph and Christ's followers would enjoy the perfect life. Often but not always, the hope for this future was used to encourage right conduct in the present. Listen to Paul in I Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolators, adulterers...

The idea of the kingdom of God as an inheritance also appears in I Cor 15:50, Gal 5:21, Eph 5:5, 2 Thess 1:5, 2 Tim 4:18, Jas 2:5, and 2 Peter 1:11. As more and more decades passed since the resurrection, the church was looking forward to, and expecting its reward in the future.

A third, and the final category I see, refers to the present as Paul was speaking and writing his epistles.
Perhaps it can be described as a state of mind, a way of living, or a description of the state of relationship with God. Let me quote the four verses:

There they strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, "It is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God." Acts 14:22

... urging and encouraging you and pleading that you lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. 1 Thess 2:12

For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Rom 14:17

For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power. I Cor 4:20

Finally, to me the best example of how we are to live out our lives right now embodying the kingdom of God is in Colossians 1:13

He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his dear son.

This tracks with the beginning, the launch of Jesus' ministry, when he cast out demons, healed the sick, and freed people from all manner of need and oppression. This is the reality we need to live in today.

So in conclusion, the kingdom of God is what Jesus' ministry was about; we need to keep that in mind if we are to read Matthew, Mark and Luke with understanding; for various reasons the phrase was de-emphasized in the epistles and early church, but we are able to recapture its meaning and importance; and welcoming God's rule into our lives and our church communities is the best way to live today just as it was during Jesus' earthly ministry.

My goal this morning is to help you read the New Testament with greater insight and understanding. You need to decide, and give feedback, on whether the information is something you're glad to get, and whether this sort of teaching is something you want to hear on Sunday morning, once every three or four months.

My text is Mark 1:1-11 with a focus on the titles of Jesus. Quotations are from the RSV.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God.

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
"Behold I send my messenger before thy face.
who shall prepare the way,
the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight"

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and ate locusts and wild honey.
And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
I have baptized you with water but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
And when he came out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending on him like a dove,
and a voice came from heaven, "This is my beloved son; with thee I am well pleased."

If you look at the first verse it appears utterly straightforward. I could introduce myself, "I am Rob Craig, son of John Craig." The verse introduces a book about Jesus Christ, son of God. But there is more going on. Consider that the name "Jesus" was chosen by God and communicated by an angel to the purported father, Joseph, in the gospel of Matthew, and to the mother, Mary, in Luke:

But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;
and she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
Matt 1:21-22

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus
Luke 1:31

Jesus is English for Yeshua, a Hebrew first name which means "savior". It was not unusual to have a boy with the name Yeshua because that was the name by which Jews in Jesus' day referred to Joshua, the successor to Moses who led the Israelites in their conquest of the promised land. The name Jesus was not an oddity but it did have a specific meaning.

Both Jesus and Joshua come from transliteration, a process where you try to preserve the sound of a word in one language when you take it to a second language. Joshua is a fairly obvious transliteration from Hebrew to English. It was more difficult to take Yeshua from Hebrew to Greek. Greek did not have the "ye" sound or the "sh" sound, and they would never have a man's name end in "a". So they came up with something like "hay-soos" (phonetic approximation). My apologies to Greek scholars.

The Joshua who led Israelites conquering the promised land is referred to twice in the New Testament, and both times the Greek name is the same as Jesus (of Nazareth). That was how Joshua was referred to at the time. But originally Joshua had a name meaning "Yahweh saves" with more letters. It was shortened to the Hebrew word meaning savior over the centuries.

Back to our introductory verse:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God.

Christ looks like a last name. But we have a clue something more is going on because in the New Testament we will find various references to "Jesus the Christ", "Christ Jesus", and "the Christ". Christ is English for christos (a transliteration) which is a Greek word for anointed one (a translation). The Hebrew for anointed one is something like messiach, from which we get the English word messiah.

In the Old Testament people were anointed for major life tasks in service to God. Anointing means pouring oil on the head. Synonyms for the significance of anointing someone, if not the physical act, are "consecrated" or "ordained". In Exodus 28:41 Moses anoints the priests. In 1 Samuel 10:1 Samuel the prophet anoints Saul as king of Israel, then in 16:10-13 he anoints David as king. In 1 Kings 19:16 Elijah anoints Elisha as his successor prophet. In Isaiah 45:1 Cyrus, the Persian emperor, is referred to as "his [God's] anointed" for the task of freeing the Jews from Babylonian captivity. The reference is figurative; Cyrus did not actually have a Hebrew priest or prophet pour oil on him, but he did accomplish a purpose God had for him.

In Jesus' time "anointed one" had more significance than merely indicating a priest had been ordained, or a king had been crowned. After the Old Testament canon was closed, and no more inspired scriptures were being written, Jewish theology continued to develop. Over the several centuries there were numerous books written. Some can be found today in a Catholic bible, in the section called Apocryphal / Deutercanonical Books, however that is a limited selection. These books are not scripture but they, along with numerous other books, give a lot of background on what religious Jews were thinking about in Jesus' day.

They were thinking about the problem of evil. You and I are troubled over bad things happening to good people. God is all powerful, all knowing, and God is love. How can He allow a child to die at birth, or a person to be cut down by cancer in the prime of life? How can he allow a good parent to be killed in an auto accident, when there are small children to raise?

The Jews were thinking about the problem of evil in a collective sense; why did God allow what had happened to Israel? They were the chosen people and they had received many great promises, yet they had been conquered and taken into exile by Babylon, then ruled over by a succession of foreign conquerors - Persian, Greek and now Roman. Why did God allow this?

The Jews' answer was to look at things from the perspective of history, over time. Yes, evil was dominant in today's world, and God even allowed it in order for evil to be fully exposed, but the day was coming when God would intervene in history with great power. There would be judgment and punishment for evil, and God's will and God's people would triumph. The exact manner and time of this event was debated, but all expected "the day of the Lord" to come.

Who was anointed for that task? Perhaps a descendant of King David would revive the monarchy and lead Israeli armies to victory. Perhaps a prophet like Moses would lead the people to victory. Perhaps God would send a powerful leader directly from heaven, or He would anoint someone unanticipated for the great task. However it was accomplished there would be - on this earth - great battles, military and political triumph for the people of God, judgment and destruction to their enemies.

The anointed one, the christ, the messiah, was the shorthand reference to this great leader who would be God's chosen agent to accomplish His great and terrible purposes.

For Mark, in his gospel, to describe Jesus as the anointed one, was a major theological assertion. You can imagine the incongruity between the image of a triumphant, victorious military and political leader of popular imagination and Jesus' actual ministry. Jesus did come to fight a great campaign, but it is primarily a spiritual battle, rather than military and political. Rather than a bloody landscape, the battleground is primarily in people's hearts and minds, and in their daily lives.

Because of the political overtones, "christ" or "messiah" was a dangerous term to use, a dangerous claim to make, and in fact highly prone to misinterpretation. Through most of his ministry Jesus is very reluctant to use the term Christ in reference to himself.

Let's look again at Mark 1:1 for our third title:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God.

God placed Israel geographically between the two great military and cultural powers of the ancient world, Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Egypt they revered the king (Pharaoh) as a god. In Mesopotamia they though of people as slaves of the gods, with the king being some sort of servant with supervisory powers. Israel was receptive to an intermediate concept of the king, as a son of God. Take a look at the prophet Nathan, pronouncing God's promises to David:

... Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your son after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom .... I will establish his kingdom forever. I will be his father and he shall be my son... your throne shall be established forever ... 2 Sam 7:11-14, 16

So the descendants of David who ascended to the throne could be referred to as sons of God, although no one considered them to be divine. They were still human. Consider Psalm 2 which scholars believe records part of the coronation ceremony for a new king. Both a narrator priest and the new king speak, and both in part of their speech quote God:

Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, saying,
"Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us."
He who sits in the heavens laughs, and the Lord has them in derision.
Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,
"I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill."

I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
You will break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Now therefor, o kings, be wise; be warned o rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear, with trembling, kiss his feet, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed be all who take refuge in him.

On the day of coronation a new Jewish king became a son of God. It was a title, not an assertion that the guy suddenly became very holy. In Matthew and Luke there are birth narratives making it clear that Jesus was the son of God; the Holy Spirit made Mary pregnant. We do not have that in Mark. Furthermore the gospel of Mark is about Jesus' authority. I submit that Mark intends for his readers to understand the title "son of God" as a reference first and foremost to Jesus' kingship.

The fourth title to discuss comes from John the Baptist's direct quote:

After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie,
I have baptized you with water but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit
Mark 1:7-8

The Jewish expectation that God would intervene in history with great power had a number of phrases attached to it; "the day of the Lord", "the anointed one", "the coming one" or "he who comes" are a partial list. The latter phrase appears expressly in the gospel of John, quoting John the baptist:

I baptize with water, but among you stands one whom you do not know, even he who comes after me... John 1:26-27

The coming one / he who comes serves to reinforce the sense of expectation associated with the title "anointed one."

I need to step away from talking about titles for a moment to better understand John the Baptist's ministry. In Mark 1's opening quotation from the Old Testament, verse 3 is from Isaiah 40, but the quoted portion in verse 2 is from Malachi 3:1

Behold I send my messenger to prepare the way before me...

The continuation of this quotation tells us more.

and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple;
the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts.
But who can endure the day of his coming? and who can stand when he appears?
for he is like a refiner's fire and a fuller's soap...

Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament. It is also worth noting the next to last verse in the book, Mal 4:5

Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes

So the messenger sent from God, John the Baptist, was to usher in a day few could endure, which would be like refiner's fire. Listen to John the Baptist quoted in Matthew 3:10-12

Even now 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.
I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

John, the prophet of God, was preaching a message slightly different from the conventional wisdom. Like the majority, he expected God to intervene powerfully in history, but unlike most he saw an intervention that emphasized punishing the immoral and people who rejected God, whether Jew or gentile, and gathering the good to Himself.

The people coming to be baptized were scared. God's intervention in history was immanent, and it would be a terrible event for anyone not in God's good graces. People wanted to "get right with God." John was giving classic "fire and brimstone" sermons and the people felt fear and awe. They rushed to repent and be baptized, as an outward demonstration of inner cleansing - so that they would not be consumed when everyone was baptized "with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

The coming one was a title primarily used by John the Baptist. Evidently John avoided using "messiah" because he sensed that God's coming intervention in history would be more spiritual than political or military. He was allowed to see more into God's plan than most anyone else, but he still only got part of the picture.

Mark 1:9-11 immediately follows the description of John's ministry, making it clear that Jesus was the coming one.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove,
and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved son, with thee I am well pleased."

What a contrast! The Holy Spirit comes, not with refiner's fire, but like a dove. This sets up a major theme or motif in the gospel of Mark; Jesus has great authority and he is God's agent intervening in history to establish the kingdom, but his kingdom and his authority are very different from what was expected, and he struggles throughout his ministry with his disciples' and the people's lack of understanding.

Note especially the similarity between the Spirit descending like a dove and the act of anointing, the pouring of oil on the head. Jesus is indeed the anointed one, the Christ, the messiah - anointed by God with the Spirit!

Oppenheimer is an Oxford (England) professor and a leading expert in the world on using DNA to track migrations. His previous book, Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World, was a fascinating detailed explanation of his theory on human migration out of Africa to eventually people the world. This book, instead of starting from a geographic location (the horn of Africa) focuses on a destination, the British Isles.

The book is lengthy and goes into a number of disciplines in addition to genetics, including archeology, history, ancient languages, geology... I will not attempt to summarize the book's parts and chapters in any detail.

Oppenheimer says what is now the British Isles was unpopulated during the last ice age, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), as recently as 17,000 years ago. Britain had previously been populated by humans, but because parts were covered with ice and the rest a polar dessert, no one lived there at the LGM. In addition the "isles" were connected to Europe. The ocean was about 400 feet lower than today so land now beneath the Channel, the North Sea, and the Irish Sea was above sea level.

During the LGM humans fled to refuges in the south of Europe. They survived in northwest Spain, the western Balkans (possibly including Italy), and southern Ukraine. As the ice receded and the climate improved, they moved north and just about every other direction to re-people the continent. There was a natural path of expansion up the Atlantic shore from Spain to the northern end of Scotland. Remember, there was no ocean to cross. Another natural path was from the Balkans up the Danube then up the major rivers of Germany, on to Scotland.

Oppenheimer's assertion is that people from these two reservoirs during the LGM converged on the British Isles (not islands then) and populated the place (as well as much of the rest of Europe). Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, and the western half of Scotland can trace ancestry primarily to Spain. England and eastern Scotland trace ancestry primarily to the Balkans.

Of course many other peoples came to Britain over the millennia, but those who got there first had the most impact on population. There were not big changes to the genetic makeup of the population once it was founded, 15 thousand + years ago.

Oppenheimer's position is contrary to conventional wisdom. People think there was a big Celtic invasion originating in Eastern Europe or Ukraine several centuries or millennia before Christ. The author discusses it and finds it unlikely there was a major migration into the British Isles by a new population group within the last few millennia, and also unlikely the Celts originated in the east. They could well have been in what is now France and the Atlantic coast for a very long time.

Conventional wisdom also has it that all the British Isles were inhabited by gaelic-speaking Celts up to the Roman conquest, then Anglo-Saxons invaded and conquered after the Romans left. These newcomers, speaking a Germanic language, pretty much exterminated the Celts in England and eastern Scotland. The genetic evidence of relationship between the English and people across the North Sea is there. But that does not prove invasion and population replacement. Those folks speaking a germanic language had actually been in Britain since before the rise in sea level, and were part of a culturally connected population on both sides of the North Sea and the Channel.

But didn't the Romans find Gauls in southeastern England when they conquered it? Yes, but what did "Gaul" mean to the Romans?

"All Gaul is divided in three parts" wrote Julius Caesar in 58 BC, the Belgae, the Celts, and the Aquitani. Oppenheimer, with a careful and convincing argument, says these three are major linguistic and ethnic groups separate from one another. The Aquitani, per Wikipedia, spoke a variation of Basque. The Celts spoke gaelic. And, per Oppenheimer, the Belgae spoke a germanic tongue. The Belgae occupied land north of the Seine River, up to the North Sea and the Channel coast near England. Tribes the Romans found in England were closely related and some even had the same names as tribes among the Belgae.

There was a continuum of germanic speaking, related peoples from eastern Scotland south to the Seine. The "English" were always there.