When You Get Them Seminary Blues

Summer reading list plus Summer drinking list.

It's a weird feeling.

Like when a relationship goes sour and ends.

Or like when your wife leaves for the weekend and you end up sleeping alone.

Or, even, when nothing bad happens and you are left with that empty feeling that can only be described as the seminary blues.

Seriously, this is a thing.

I've written two major papers this quarter, spent hours upon hours online, reading and talking and foruming it up with classmates over Paul, empire, textual criticism, sex, and social context. I don't know how weird it is to say this, but I've spent so much time in 33-62CE that I have forgotten to live in the twenty first century. In normal conversations with people at work, I've dropped Paulinist language almost by accident. A friend asked me if I thought something, and I said "by no means!"

He looked at me like I had stuck my hand down my pants.

The feeling is like this: on a Monday I get up at 330am, drive to work from 4am to 5am, work from 5 until the mid-afternoon, go to Irvine (a ten mile drive north of work), sit around and write for 2 hours, sit in class for 3 hours, and go home. Most of the day is spent driving, working, listening to lectures, reading, writing, and listening to lectures.

And now I have nothing to do besides work.

No reports. No forum debates. No papers. No research. Nothing.

And it leaves this gaping hole in your schedule and you find yourself almost in a state of anxiety. Or maybe that's just me. As I'm sitting in our studio in Pasadena, reading Goldingay and Thompson, nursing hot chocolate, I have forgotten what it means to sit down and not do anything.

Its something you desperately want, and when it happens, you end up sitting down and writing about why you have nothing to do. Nothing to do is a good thing sometimes. Seminary teaches you Greek, textual criticism, hermeneutics, the pains of history, and the nature of Scripture. It sometimes forgets to teach you how to sit down and enjoy silence.

So, I will go back to Thompson, Goldingay, and my hot chocolate. Not because I have to read them, but because I get to. Time to relearn the nature of enjoying literature without the stress of a deadline. Now with a brew.

Thanks for reading my musings.

NQ

Prodigals and Parables: A (Short) Analysis of Luke 15:11-32

This is short, and I was not allowed to consult commentaries. One thousand words for the win.

The story of the prodigal son is a staple in my evangelical story. People referenced it constantly when I returned to the faith, and I read it that way for a long time: until now. Reading this text within its canonical context and co-text has pushed me to reflect on the nature of the overall narrative in relation to the first-century readers.

Within the larger context of ch14-15, our text sits comfortably after 15:1-7 and 15:8-10, and both sections refer to lost items (coin, sheep). Both pieces are significant as they are parables, but the subject of the younger son in the third unit (v.11-32) indicates that we’ve progressed beyond items into personhood. 14:1 tells us that Jesus “was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath.” It seems that the entirety of 15:11-32 can be aspectivally located within 14:1. All of these stories are being told over a meal, where social privilege is evident (14:7) and situated within that specific residence. Jesus’ address to his host (14:12) indicates that there were no poor at this event (14:13-14), thus indicating a social hierarchy. Crowds, having followed Jesus (14:25), are outside. The meal within the dwelling of the Pharisee illustrates that some were open to Jesus.

15:1-2 indicate that the tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes were all near Jesus, placing implicit mixed social, political and religious pressure. Themes of eschatological reversal play quite heavily here as Jesus emphasizes the ones who would be discarded (15:3-7), and the one who seeks them out. Each parable has an audience of the haves and the have-nots, with the focus on reversal and repentance. Now, Jesus can launch into the parable of the prodigal son, which concerns each listener at this meal.

The story begins (v.11) with a father and his two sons. The younger demands his share of the father’s property. Is it implied that the older son is given his dowry as well (“… he divided his property between them”, v.12)? After leaving for a distant land, the younger son lost everything; the adverb ἀσώτως is used here and only here in the New Testament to describe his life (which is the present active participle ζῶν). BDAG 148 defines ἀσώτως as “wastefully, prodigally.”

The younger son goes to a foreign land (v.14). Perhaps this is rhetorical irony by Jesus, as the one with excess is caught in a land that is now barren; the younger son (Joseph from Genesis 37-50) is not in Kansas anymore. In v.15-16, the younger son’s duty is to feed the owner’s pigs, which are seen as “unclean” animals in Leviticus 11:7-8. There is nothing there for the younger son to “fill himself”; the verb “γεμίζω” indicates a perverse reversal of being “filled.”

V.17-19 tells of the plot point concerning the younger son’s return to his father. He remembers his former status as a well-fed younger son. The people outside the Pharisees’ house identify with this son at this point, as they are perhaps hungry outsiders. The younger son remembers his father’s wealth and how even hired workers had enough bread to eat (v.17). Staple foods like bread are gold in light of starvation. Simply, the younger son wants nothing more than to be a hired hand, a keeping of his current status.

In v.20, the father sees him from far off, indicating that he was looking for him, and knew where he would come from. The father was filled with compassion, and he runs out to him and weeps. A possible intertext for this passage may be Gen. 45:14, where Joseph weeps with his brothers after a long time apart because of horrific actions on the part of his brothers. Here, the roles are reversed: the older embraces the younger this time.

Despite this display, the son blurts out his failures. How often do we still feel the need to remind those who forgive us that we still sinned? The father ignores this and has the slaves (δούλους, not μισθίων); this change may emphasize the status of the slaves in the younger son’s stead. The father does not have his son’s body washed, and instead places rings and robes on him (v.22); a father’s happiness covers a multitude of customs. V.23-24 utilizes the fatted calf, showing us that a grand feast is to commence (a reference to Lev. 9:3 as a “burnt offering?”). What makes this interesting is that the imagery of fresh meat is not lost upon those who are outside and hungry during the telling of this parable. When the older son hears this celebration one can imagine his annoyance at not being invited. Indicating the possible shift of social status regarding “δούλους” and “μισθίων” in v.22, here in v.26 the older son asks the “παίδων” (child, servant) about the celebration.

We are not told the father’s words when he emerges from the celebration, but the response from the older son reveals that he views himself as a “δουλεύω” (one who slaves) to his father, thus viewing himself lower than the “παίδων.” The father is shocked, as he believes “all” (πάντα) that he has belongs to his older son. This reveals the selfishness of the older son: his status was never under dispute, and was never at odds with the father’s character and love for his younger son. Thus, when someone lost repents (v.32), we celebrate and rejoice.

The fact that the older brother—now likely representing a Pharisee who is already a part of the kingdom—reacts negatively when the dirty and repentant return to the family of God reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a part of God’s kingdom. This is all over a meal, an intimate setting. Pharisees are already included in God’s kingdom, but to some of their chagrin, so are the outsiders who repent and return. 

NQ

The Fuller Forum: Reflections About Reflection

This post comes from my time in Dr. Sechrest's Paul class. We were required to attend the Fuller Forum. These are my reflections. 

Throughout the Fuller Forum conference, police sirens repeatedly beset Walter Brueggemann’s plenary lectures as the persistent wailings echoed throughout the packed chapel. As Brueggemann spoke, the student body was repeatedly aware of the almost profane nature of the sirens resounding throughout a sacred space such as a church and this tragic reality forced us to consider how justice, grace, and law are to be reflected in the life of the church.

Having been made aware through my various readings in Paul and the Old Testament, I thought I was becoming more aware of empire and the economics of the day. Nothing prepared me for being this wrong. The challenge of economy is a persistent theme throughout the Old Testament and Brueggemann hammered this home with passion and unpredicted delicacy. My question is this: in light of the Old Testament’s emphasis on economic equality and it’s condemnation of financial exploitation, how do we as a church work within the confines of government without betraying or compromising our mission as a church?

In reflecting about Brueggemann’s plenaries and the multitude of speakers (a highlight being able to see my priest John Goldingay preach with his trademark green socks peeking out from some affluent trousers), I would like to challenge this conception of a “dynamic” relationship with God. While I’m very sympathetic to this portrayal of God in the Old Testament, I am reserved to consider Brueggemann’s statement (and I must paraphrase): “This relationship between YHWH and Israel is open, fractured, and on going. It is not settled.” I wonder if this is completely accurate. For example, YHWH always seems committed to Israel throughout the Old Testament, and even YHWH’s fierce denouncement of the Israelites in Exodus 32:7-11 seems to suggest that YHWH is still settled on Israel in some sense. It is said of Moses “of you I will make a great nation” (v.10). It could be that the Old Testament offers a myriad of pictures of YHWH, and so we are free to generalize and avoid being bogged down in details. However, YHWH almost always seems committed to Israel as a corporate body, even when all seems lost.

When Dr. Cleveland asked about segregated churches, Brueggemann stated a possible solution (and I again paraphrase): “Meet in the middle over certain issues…we need to keep repenting of our tribalism.” While this is entirely necessary, I wonder if Brueggemann’s statement does not go far enough. Of course it may depend upon the issue, but I wonder it may be more necessary to suggest that denominations as a concept are what the problem is—or at least contribute to the problem. The very logic of a denomination is that it places parameters around what function as identity markers within a specific people group that resides within a specific people group. I do not want to demonize denominations, as my denomination (American Baptist USA) has been incredibly faithful and gracious. I do wonder, however, if the church can gather around a specific creed (Nicaea, Athanasian) and allow our rougher edges to be sanded off by one another. To be one in Christ ought to imply deference to the other, and a desire for unity within diversity (1 Cor. 12). 

NQ

Drinking From The Deep Creedal Wells: Nicaea, Christology, and Salvation-History

This is intended as a reflection on the Creeds in Relation to New Testament Christology and the Christian Life

In reflecting upon this past quarter, one is hard pressed to consider a topic more pressing and pertinent than Christology. The topics of the virgin birth, subordinationism, and Christ’ sinlessness—or inability to sin—are persistently being debated in academic institutions and seminaries, with little end in sight. Often the relationship between theoretical dogma and ordinary life is overlooked, as the academic world and pastoral ministry can be seen as at odds with each other. However, in light of the Christian existence and the need to actually live a life based upon Scripture, one then needs to know the Scriptural reciprocity Scripture and the Creeds. The goal of this paper is to reflect upon the nature and witness of the Creeds for New Testament Christology, and the implications for daily life in the Church.

The Creeds of Nicaea (325AD) and Nicene-Constantinopolitan (381AD) are considered a vital part of the Church’s historical testimony. I confess that I had never read either Creed in its entirety until this past quarter, so perusing the ancient literature provided a theological jolt that would press anyone into more serious study. Thus, there are three crucial issues one may find within the Creeds that present Christian theology with some measure of doctrinal preeminence.

First, the Creeds have centralized key doctrinal issues that most consider to be top tier. For example, Christ’s equality with God the Father, his preexistence, virgin birth, death, and resurrection. Second tier subjects such as church government, differing views on eschatology (eternal conscious punishment or annihilationism), and even the inerrancy of Scripture are not present in any of the early Creeds—although baptism appears quite prominently as a feature as the universal church favors “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” This of course does not mean the aforementioned doctrines are not important doctrines—far from it! —But rather the early church did not view them in an ‘essentialist’ manner. Christology was—and is—more important than Christian views of church and government. So, in a way, this Creedal first order has helped provide an essential result of the basics of Christian orthodoxy, confirmed by Paul (1 Cor. 15:1-4 and passim) as Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead.

Second, the Creeds have really teased out a lot of the theological themes in the New Testament. A classic example is the doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere in the New Testament—disregarding the textual interpolation in 1 John 5:7-8—is the doctrine of the Trinity clearly and systematically laid out in a manner that would provide unequivocal support. However, given the data regarding Jesus’ divinity (John 5:18; 10:30), some form of his preexistence (1 Cor. 10:4; Col. 1:15-20), his equality with God (Phil. 2:6-7), and his possibly being called God (θεὸς in Rom. 9:5; c.f. Titus 2:13 if by Paul) all offer some strong possible glimpses of the relationship within the Godhead, or as Richard Bauckham says, “the divine identity.” The inclusion of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is a classic example of an early proto-Trinitarian doxology (c.f. 1 Cor. 12:4-6). Christ is also spoken about in the same way as YHWH, where 2 Thess. 1:8-9 speaks of “the Lord Jesus from Heaven” (τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ) in the same way YHWH is spoken of in the Old Testament (c.f. Isaiah 66:15-16), bringing judgment upon the oppressors of the church. This all seems to culminate in our fulfilled affirmation of Christ:

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all things, Light of Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance/being with the Father.”

This teasing of doctrine out of the New Testament is helpful, insofar as it finds common threads among the diverse authors of Scripture and manages to intertwine them in an embroidery—an embroidery that illustrates the beauty of Scripture as she dances throughout history, leaving footprints in the sands of time for us to follow.

Third and finally, the Creeds place a definitive capstone on the salvation-history narrative that Scripture seems to point towards. They tell the story of the preexistence and consubstantial Son who was sent into the world “who for us [humans], and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made [human].” In a world driven by personal and corporate narrative and the accumulation of particular experiences, this salvation story offers humanity a glimpse into the divine reality. This narrative categorically rejects other competing narratives, such as sexual, racial, and economic exploitation in favor of a life of humbleness and service. It tells a story of God waging a war against the forces of evil and death, being subjected to these forces in a state of humiliation, and rising in triumph over the grave. It assumes the unity of the holy Catholic Church (Eastern, Roman, Protestant), and where we place our hope: in the resurrection of the dead and in the life of the world to come. It is to stand with the Prophets of old who denounce injustice and corruption, whether secular or religious. It presents to us an ecologically minded framework for the care of the earth, as this earth was given by God the Father through Christ (1 Cor. 8:4-6), and thus demands our care as viceroys, as caretakers. It confirms the unique humanity of both male and female, as Christ died for “us humans” (ἀνθρώπους) and was made human for us (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα), that neither male nor female are excluded from the drama of redemption.

This new creation under the reign of the eternal Godhead will have no end. Thus, fear is no longer a necessity, but a memorial. Our salvation narrative ultimately trusts in the final defeat, abolition, and annihilation of evil and death. It proclaims hope for the dearly departed in Christ, and requires our action within this very page-turning narrative. It is a call for holy living ‘in Christ’ where we place ourselves within his paradigm and partake in his church. Ours is a pursuit of theosis, a dance towards the divine, nearing a place where the streets have no name. It is the rejection of darkness and an assumption of never ending light (Rev. 21:25), where God dwells with mortals (Rev. 21:3).

The richness of the Christian tradition is indeed a comfort for many, offering to us chances of reflection and refinement as we seek to offer our faith in an increasingly unique and challenging world. The Creeds offer us a chance to offer a concise look at this faith, with its potential and implications for the future. It demands allegiance in a military manner, and confirms our trust in the working out of our lives with fear and trembling. It calls us to think of the future as an approaching reality, not as a distant unattainable goal. Our τέλος requires working towards this now. This is why we exhort people to now be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5), and why we proclaim his coming—where he is both Judge and King. 

The Creeds thus are relevant, necessary, and vital to the Christian understanding of God and our understanding of how we relate to the world. 

NQ

4 Reasons to Rethink Hell

In order to resist making terrible puns about eternal punishment, I’m going to dive right into this rather short blog post. Several others have already made some observations and I don’t claim to have read their posts. If there is overlap, that’s pretty cool actually. So here are 4 reasons why you should rethink hell.

1. The Bible does not teach the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious punishment. I feel like I could drop the mic and walk away from the computer now, but I should clarify. A great think the Reformation did was fan the flames and push us all back to Scripture. The problem is, well, we didn’t consistently adopt the mentality of “Scripture alone” and “always reforming.” So, Scripture does not teach the doctrine known to us as ECT.
   
2. You should rethink hell because other people are rethinking hell. They do this in the form of point 1, and are offering sophisticated arguments in favor of various interpretations of hell i.e., universalism. You should rethink hell in order to further nuance your perspective, or change your mind, or settle yourself more firmly. There is a veritable library of resources available to you. Either way, always be in the process of reforming yourself.
    
3. The mainstream media is in on the game, and this is a good thing. People are interested in hell. Think about it: that’s like getting kids being excited to eat their veggies. An example of this is Edward Fudge being interviewed by the New York Times. This could be a great opportunity to engage culture. Especially if one is into apologetics. Think about it: death is on the mind, we are in the midst of global unrest. Why not rethink hell and also heaven?
    
4. You should rethink hell because, as a Christian, you claim to speak for God. We speak about his character and we are to act accordingly. So, in the spirit of humility and Christian charity, you should rethink it afresh in order to determine what God has said in his word.

There’s also a really cool conference in Pasadena that I am helping to put on. Its called the Rethinking Hell Conference. Its about hell (obviously), and challenging universalism. Its under $100 to attend the three-day event (June 18-20), with some variety in prices and some incredible speakers: Oliver Crisp, Jerry Walls, David Instone-Brewer, and others. Please come rethink hell with us!

As an aside, I’m almost positive that someone has already used this title, or some form of it. But after a brief Google search, I couldn’t find much of anything related. So, I guess I’m ahead of the Internet curve for once? Either way, thanks for clicking the link.

NQ

Christology: A Global Introduction (Parts III and IV)

Part three (109-188) is by far the most substantial part of Kärkkäinen’s work, dealing with theological luminaries such as Pannenberg, Barth, Tillich, Moltmann and Bultmann. His treatments of each theologian are incisive and his ability to summarize their key points of emphasis is respectable. He rightly emphasizes the ‘dialectic’ that captivated Barth and even includes lesser-known theologians such as evangelical Stanley Grenz. The only complaint one could offer in this section is that the more interesting writings from Grenz were published posthumously (c.f. Rediscovering the Triune God) and only one main text (Theology for the Community of God). from Grenz appears to be consulted at the time of Kärkkäinen’s publication. Throughout, Kärkkäinen is charitable and displays the views of in question with grace. All theological discussion ought to be conducted in such a manner and our author models this well. However, Kärkkäinen does not shy away from difficult questions that result from a theologian’s construction of theology. For instance, he questions Tillich’s contribution to modern theology and asks, “if the Fall was a necessary event?” (131-132), and calls his approach “idiosyncratic” (132). As regards Rudolph Bultmann, Kärkkäinen notes the ‘missionary’ aspect of why one would be interested in the ‘mytholgical nature’ of the New Testament (123). This reveals two key truthes in modern theology: first, we are products of our times, and second, that we ought to consider how to best offer the gospel to an increasingly pluralistic world. Though Bultmann denied the literal resurrection, nonetheless it held him emotionally captive, exemplifying the power of the Gospel to cause both one to see and yet another to stumble. For better or worse Kärkkäinen has wet the appetite of evangelicals and offered us a strong reason to now read Bultmann!

The final part of Kärkkäinen’s work in part four concerns various Christological ideas that include black and feminist theology—among many others. For readers—and this reviewer—this section is the final bite of a rather fast-paced sweet. Kärkkäinen’s summation of black Christology is especially powerful in light of modern events (Ferguson), presenting his students with the problem of ‘otherness’ and the necessity for reconciliation ‘in Christ.’ The emphasis of James Cone on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ offers evangelicals a firm starting point of identification. This creedal affirmation, found in 1 Cor. 15:1-8, is a strong primer for black Christology, and it’s a parallel belief that all evangelicals can embrace. “Liberation and reconciliation,” [Cone] said, “presuppose one another” (211).

The chapter on feminist Christology is both a painful and necessary reminder for all who profess the liberating message of Christ: the use of Holy Scripture to subordinate women. This injustice must be acknowledged and rectified. A helpful comment by Stanley Grenz of the previous section is this: “Jesus [is] not only essential deity but also essential humanity” (174). A point that could have been noted by Kärkkäinen concerns the continual use of “ἄνθρωπος” (generic: person, human) in the Gospels, and also by Paul in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15: since Christ is commonly referred as a ‘ἄνθρωπος’ instead of ‘ἀνήρ’ (specific, male/man) this has some intriguing assumptions that may already press against the mistaken belief that “Jesus’ maleness has often been used as an argument against the full humanity of women” (198). Christ’s humanity is most often in view, not his maleness. Christ, as savior of women and men, is identified as the one who became σάρξ in John’s prologue. The humanness of the person, as complete in the image of God, is what matters in Christ; of note is Galatians 3:28 which directly quotes Gen. 1:27, indicating that the flesh of the Son of God who died and reconciled us of Paul’s primary concern. Thus, there is sufficient biblical warrant to elevate that status of Christ’s humanity and not overplay his gender in a manner that would disregard women, especially when both genders are active in ministry (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:2-3) and mutually yield to one another (Eph. 5:21). A helpful addition to this section would be the succinct and classic defense by the late T.F. Torrance who argues persuasively that the Christological excuse to exclude women “conflicts with the orthodox understanding of the incarnation as the saving assumption of the whole human being, male and female, and as the healing of our complete human nature.”[1] These additional considerations would have helped present some of the biblical witness that has been pressing back against patriarchy from the very incarnation.

There is much to commend about Kärkkäinen’s work. It is fast-paced and yet not without considerable substance, passionate without being pedantic. The diverse offerings are a breath of genuinely ecumenical air. Kärkkäinen offers us a wide feast of Christian history and theology that pushes all beyond the limits of the evangelical scholastic subculture. While there are some weaknesses—mostly due to the aforementioned brevity of the textbook–nearly every major portion of Church history is discussed, most major modern theologians are represented, and the major biblical difficulties are examined with a creedal and critical eye. Kärkkäinen’s theological distillation can only inspire further study and he is to be thanked for his work.

NQ

[1] Torrance, T.F. "The Ministry of Women." Touchstone Archives:. January 1, 1992. Accessed January 22, 2015. http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=05-04-005-f.

Christology: A Global Introduction, A Review (PART II)

Part I is here. Here is the rest.

Part two is a meditation upon the various Christological heresies within the early church traditions. Building off the New Testament, Kärkkäinen explains the various questions these holy writings produce, and the results are fascinating. Kärkkäinen covers Docetism, Apollinarianism, Arianism and Nestorianism, and their advocates and detractors. The difficult questions that were produced by these theological constructs are not hidden by Kärkkäinen, but are rather offered as a means to illustrate the difficulties surrounding the human one from Nazareth.

The one issue a reader might have is that main patristic sources such as Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus are not fully explained, thus leaving students a bit confused as to how the Church got from point A to C.

The councils Chalcedon and Nicaea are attempts to solve these perennial problems, but do so in a limited fashion. For instance, types of subordination are not immediately ruled out (contemporarily called ‘functional subordinationism’ with advocates such as Ware and Grudem), and this is an area where Christians continue to disagree. Kärkkäinen helpfully distinguishes between the Eastern and Western emphases concerning ‘natures’ (69-71), and showcases the tragic gap that developed between both East and West over these enduring issues of Christology and dogma. Built off these developments, the Reformation is front and center in engaging with kenosis Christology and Luther’s theology of the Cross, paving the way for modern theology (Moltmann).

Kärkkäinen then takes us on a whirlwind tour of the quests for the historical Jesus and the trappings of liberal Christianity, and he opines “one hopes that those involved will begin to dialogue more widely with systematic theology” (108). While the section on biblical studies was largely helpful, this part of the book is particularly edifying in illuminating the veiled aspects of church history.

NQ

Christology: A Global Introduction, A Review (PART I)

This review (though modified) was written for ST502, and I commend it to you.

Taking two thousand years of Christian theology and surveying it in fewer than three hundred pages is no small feat, especially when one includes the complexities of world religions. Dr. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen—Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary—has engaged these diverse theological strands and offers students of theology an inclusive and largely successful survey on the person and work of Jesus Christ. He does this in four distinct parts.

Part one includes a survey of the New Testament witness to Christ, beginning with the various Christological titles employed to describe Jesus. Titles such as κύριος and Χριστός—among many others—are expounded upon, thanks to the previous scholarship of James D.G. Dunn, yielding a unity and diversity of Christological viewpoints within the New Testament. Kärkkäinen’s presentation is helpful and succinct because he draws upon current scholarship and is quick to inform the student about the complex theological titles for Jesus. He then turns to Jesus and the Gospels, where the great themes are briefly elucidated: for Mark, suffering and servanthood; for Matthew, kingship and Jewish identity; for Luke, inclusion; for John, the word as life. However, one can always press for more detail: for example, the Lukan theme of ‘eschatological reversal’ is not mentioned, and would have strengthened Kärkkäinen’s contention for inclusion, as Mary’s Magnificat praises YHWH for “bringing down the powerful” and as the one who has “lifted up the lowly” (Luke 1:46-55). The inclusion of women, gentiles and the poor in Luke’s rendering of Christ’s ministry would have helped flesh out this vital contention, as it is a dominant Luke motif. With all that said, Kärkkäinen does not force a synthesis between the divergent accounts but prefers to see each account as illuminating, “various aspects of the life, death, and resurrection of the One who was and is confessed as Lord and Savior” (43). The gospels are a tapestry to be experienced, not contained or diluted.

Rounding out part one is Paul and Kärkkäinen approaches the apostle in the same manner he approached the Gospels: the various titles appropriated by Paul for Christ are discussed, and a survey of the various Pauline epistles save for the Pastoral Epistles. The unfortunate exclusion of 1-2 Timothy and Titus, although understandable as they are certainly disputed texts, is a problematic omission when considered against the inclusion of Ephesians. Certainly the Pastoral Epistles contain some Christological content that merits consideration, and could even aid in the diversification of early “Catholicism,” assuming Paul is not their author. For example, Titus 2:13 may be the second instance where Paul affirms explicitly that Jesus is God, with the other being Romans 9:5. Notably, Jesus is called a ‘mediator’ in 1 Tim. 2:5, a text that begs for further integration with the biblical tradition, especially since it may contain a theological strand also seen in Hebrews of Jesus as ‘high priest.’ The notion of ‘received text’ must be contended with if theologians are to exclude three epistles of the most prominent first century interpreter of the life of Jesus.

Finally, Kärkkäinen contends that Paul believed in, among many things, the preexistence of Christ and particularly the death and resurrection of the only Son of God (58). The strength of this section is that the breadth of the Pauline writings are mined and each epistle is permitted to stand as sole witness to the truth of Christ with the lone exception being the Pastoral Epistles.[1]

NQ

---

[1] The issue about the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is long and vexatious. Suffice to say, the slim majority of Pauline scholars reject Pauline authorship (I. Howard Marshall, Jouette Bassler, Raymond Collins) while others affirm them (Ben Witherington, Luke Timothy Johnson). Personally, I'm on the fence until I've had enough chance to research the specific topic on my own time. The only other text I've delved into is Ephesians and I'm leaning against Pauline authorship though its not a settled case at all.

4 things You learn in Your first quarter at Seminary

1. Greek opens up the Bible for you in a way that nothing else can. 

I remember when this happened. I was reading about Pauline authorship regarding Ephesians (as can be seen here) and I was going off only six hours of sleep in three days. By this I mean I was dog tired. So while reading this commentary, I perused his exegetical comments regarding 1:3-14 and just kept reading. It was not until thirty minutes and fifty pages later that I realized something:

I was actually reading Greek. The original language Holy Scripture was written in, with all its variants and difficulties and marvelous simplicity.

So that was cool.

2. Historical-Criticism is an asset for the church, not an enemy. 

All theology and research must, ultimately, be done for the sake of empowering the church. So in researching the issue of authorship and simply thinking hard about the complexities therein, I hope that it isn't seen as being...I dunno...intentionally controversial.

Rather, its a historical and exegetical question that has some pretty significant theological implications. I won't rehash them here, but if something has the power to affect the church, then the church should be fully informed in order to make her own decisions.

Well okay. I'll speculate a bit. Richard Pervo dates Ephesians to around 80-90AD. Assuming he is true, it makes it difficult to utilize Ephesians in Pauline theology. However, the historical circumstances can greatly inform our contemporary exegesis of the text.

Think about it: Ephesians 2:11-22 has plenty to say for race relations, regardless of dating and authorship. 5:21-33 has a lot to say about mutuality and marriage. On and on it goes.

3. Difficulties becomes more easy to investigate when you aren't afraid.

In thinking about points 1 and 2 more, I've learned that I don't seem to be worried about certain theological or textual issues anymore. Could be I'm burnt out. Could be that there are some things worth worrying about.

4. A Podcast is likely forthcoming.

I have a few friends who are looking to be involved, and so I might begin recording episodes bi-monthly with them, as well as some episodes on my own exploring various exegetical issues in Paul. Of course, that is subject to change as seminary is likely to cause us to drop things pretty quickly.

If you would be interested in a podcast, let me know on Twitter @nickquient and if there are any NT topics that you might like me/us to talk about.

NQ

Paul and Musings about the Authorship of Ephesians

Inspired by my last blog post (which I shall post here without shame), I've continued reading various commentaries regarding Pauline authorship of Ephesians. I do this for several reasons, one of them personal, so I shall elucidate that reason right here.

In the past, I simply assumed a lot of things about Scripture and what she taught. For example, the one-sided submission of wives to husbands was one such idea that I assumed. In finishing up my first quarter at Fuller, I've begun to reconsider and reexamine many theological foundations I built my life upon. Scripture has always been (since I've come back to Christ) the primary authority over my life, theologically. So, I consider many doctrines to be thoroughly Scriptural i.e. a high Christology in many places (John, Phil. 2:6, Titus 2:13 and others) and the Doctrine of the Trinity. However, I've become quite impassioned to reconsider many theological options (regarding human anthropology and other ideas) based on going back to Scripture. So, frankly, I can no longer assume much of anything without careful study. Everything is on the table. This includes the option of authorship as it relates to Ephesians.

As per the rest of this post, I won't be offering every reason for or against Pauline authorship. I'd have to write an entire book on the topic, a project that I would love to do post-seminary. But that's another story.

So a few things that I'm thinking about:

1. This is the main one, and it concerns a single partial phrase: so what?

So what if Paul did or did not write Ephesians? Why is it important?

Fair enough. If it turns out Paul did not write Ephesians, then Ephesians must be relegated to secondary status when working through a Pauline chronology and theology. Perhaps Ephesians (and subsequently 1-2 Timothy and Titus, most likely) must be placed within a Pauline school (or schools). This would keep Ephesians canonical, but would not allow them primacy of place within the construct of Pauline theology. Similar to Acts, though it is not an exact analog. 

So the question of authorship matters to me, as an evangelical who is passionate about Paul and his theology. Ephesians would still be considered authoritative Scripture (as it is impossible to determine whether or not someone was of ill-will in writing in his name) in the same way that Second-Isaiah would be. It informs our understanding of the various texts, and God saw fit to include it in the canon.

2. The issue of historical criticism and the search for truth.

Simply put, truth matters. The questions of historicity within the biblical texts matter for dating and chronology and the influence of development within Pauline thought. It can also showcase the materials utilized by a Pauline author or school at a later date, thus illustrating similarities and developments within Pauline theology.

3. Some Authorship Issues and Musings

Many put the issue of women in ministry right here. Lincoln, for instance, alludes to this issue in his commentary (I forget the page number; can find it if someone is truly interested), citing the mutuality and equality in 1 Cor. 7:1-16 and Gal. 3:28. For my money, I see no contradiction between the historical Paul and "deutero" Paul in relation to his views on women. I fully support the ordination of women.

The textual issue in 1:1-2 includes the omission of "in Ephesus." Most commentators that I've read think this is strike one against Pauline authorship, relegating the epistle to a circular letter. Included in this discussion is the explicit relationship between Colossians and Ephesians. Proponents for or against authorship cite this and use it to try and discredit the other side. For my money, I think the utilization between the two is definitive but the relationship is not decisive, though if there are other factors that push one towards non-Pauline authorship, then the writer most certainly copied Ephesians. One could cite a similar method used by Matthew and Luke in their use of Mark, but this more relies on whether or not Q exists. For my money (a phrase I love and will happily beat into the ground), I doubt Q.

Another issue is that the writer of Ephesians seems somewhat ignorant of the state of the recipients of the letter (1:15; 3:1-6 esp. 1-2; 4:20-24 esp. 21-22). This is not a usual way for Paul to write, especially given the way he writes his epistle to Rome (a place he had never been), especially since Acts 19 reveals Paul's ministry to Ephesus. This is especially potent when one thinks about how much Paul wrote in Romans to a church he had never been; indeed, he writes about the state of the world in 1-4, the nature of grace and love in 5-8, Jew and Gentile 9-11, and practical issues in 12-16. That is a lot of writing to a place he had never been. Ephesians, some have said, feels more like a summary of Pauline thought. Especially with no controversy evident in Ephesians at all, compared to the rest of the Pauline corpus.

This is not definitive but it reveals a possible tension. A lack of facebook and email does make a correspondence difficult. Although, reading

So none of this is definite or conclusive for me. More thinking this true. Thanks for reading!

NQ

Eschatology Decompressing: Some of the Best Books on Hell

There is something of an inner-family debate going amongst the evangelical family. At the moment, the traditionalist father is somewhat uneasily passing the potatoes to the conditionalist mothers, who is eying both the father and the kids, who are patiently waiting for the aforementioned potatoes because, well, it will get to the end eventually.

You see, the debate has become far more interesting and respectable as of late, what with the father being will to pass the now cooling potatoes to the mother and all. The mother, bless her strong heart, is happy to pass the dish either way, but she is more likely to double check with the father because...

Okay this analogy has become significantly less funny to me so I shall move on. Thanks for humoring me. Anyway.

There is an abundance of materials out now concerning the evangelical debate on the nature and duration of final punishment. While it is easy to simply google the various phrases (and if you did and ended up here, welcome!), I figured it would be helpful to simply list the various texts that have some significant pull in the world between the Church and the Academy.

I shall start with universalism, mostly because Universalism hasn't gotten a fair shake amongst many evangelicals. For good reason or not, one ought to engage with the best texts on the topic and I have listed them below:

Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God has just been released and has been quite influential in some parts of the evangelical world. It even has some traditionalist scholars praising it such as Jerry Walls.

For a broader view of the family dynamic, see Universal Salvation: The Current Debate. Reasonably respectful, though there is some sniping as to be expected, since the potatoes by this time have gotten quite cold.

Robin Parry, who is a lovely fellow, has written a book on the topic that I find quite attractive--though not enough to be an Evangelical Universalist (again). I found it far more persuasive than Talbott's and it merits some consideration.

For the traditionalist side of the family table, there are many books and a few of them are helpful. That may sound like a bit of a snipe, and it is. Unlike God, I'm allowed to not play favorites.

The singular best text that was written to explicitly defend the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment is Hell Under Fire. That said, there are issues within and the best chapter is Douglas Moo's contribution on Paul. The chapters that object to annihilationism and universalism likely won't change the mind of either party, and we're inclined to keep those potatoes at our end of the table thank you very much.

However, if one is a philosophy nerd, Jerry Walls' Hell: The Logic of Damnation is helpful. It is not the kind of book you break out at the dinner table (none of these are), but if one is partial to C.S. Lewis, one might find it attractive.

Judith Gundry-Volf's contribution (entitled "Universalism" pgs956-961) in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters directly tackles the topic of Pauline Universalism. She concludes that, “universalism may perhaps be best defended as an implication of some statements in Paul.” I found her case remarkably compelling. 

For those of us who prefer large books that are heavy enough to beat a goat to death with, Edward Fudge's The Fire that Consumes (edited by Robin Parry) is the standard weapon of choice. He tackles both Testaments and does so in a persuasive manner. Richard Bauckham notes that the book "is likely to remain a standard work to which everyone engaged with this issue will constantly return."

Hans Schwarz, Eschatology, is a helpful survey of the relevant biblical, scientific and theological terrain of the current landscape. Some may bristle at his rejections of both AN and UR, and many Dispensationalists will take offense as well, but its a great text. I reviewed and praised it here.

Samuele Bacchiocchi is a 7th Day Adventist (and pretty shockingly conservative, even for many conservatives) and he defends a synthesis of physicalism and annihilationism. I find some of his work a bit too general but his larger arguments are helpful and its a free pdf. Enjoy.

Oscar Cullmann is always awesome. I recommend him highly too, even for such a slim book its quite potent. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection from the Dead?

For a great site dedicated to the topic of final punishment, enjoy the Rethinking Hell site.

I write this post mostly due to the fact that I just finished a research paper for Dr. Oliver Crisp, and I'm so full of hell that I need to write this to decompress. Now, where are those potatoes?

NQ

A Review of Hans Schwarz's "Eschatology"

This is my second assignment for ST503 and Dr. Crisp. Its an early draft so be nice. Its my second paper to ever make it to the graduate level.  Enjoy!

A highly recommended book.

In the multifaceted world we inhabit, eschatology can encompass a multitude of disciplines: philosophy, science and theology. Hans Schwarz has offered the world an exceptionally readable volume that attempts to synthesize the best of all the aforementioned disciplines into a broad survey of the last things. He treads where many systematic theologies do not, especially in exploring various secular and progressive worldviews, seeking the truth in all of them. He largely succeeds and offers the reader his findings in three major parts.

Part one engages with the diversity and unity of both Testaments as they relate to eschatology. The historical background of the Old Testament “…was basically a death-driven culture” (32). As is often the case, existentialism and the knowledge of death are never far from each other where “…the living know that they will die but the dead know nothing” (Eccl. 9:5). Schwarz notes the heightened “emphasis on the this-worldly aspect of life” (36) and because of this reality, to live seventy or even eighty years was desired above all else (Ps. 90:9-10), though these years were still a breath. Though his survey is expansive, Schwarz could have shown that the Old Testament attests to a longing for justice and that punishment of the wicked (Ps. 110:6; 139:18-20) does not happen in this life (Job 21:7; Jer. 12:1). Because of the lack of justice in this earthly existence, YHWH will act in the next life to bring judgment upon Israel’s oppressors, thus suggesting Israel and the world’s need for cosmic justice and the possibility of resurrection of the righteous and the wicked (Dan. 12:2; Isaiah 66:15-24).

Based off Schwarz’s findings in the Old Testament, he moves on to show that the New Testament has a more developed outlook on the question of eschatology with special attention placed on fulfillment in Christ. For example, Matthew “wants to show that the Old Testament promises have found their fulfillment in Jesus” (84). Schwarz then rightly insists upon continuity between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as both Testaments testify to Jesus and his mission and exaltation, though this was not as developed because the importance of Second Temple Judaism is left largely unmentioned. In regards to Jesus’ messianic understanding, Schwarz correctly claims that, “[Jesus] never delineated a chronology of life eternal nor a geography of the beyond” (80); this biblical obscurity has resulted in over two thousand years of speculation on the part of the Church, and it is indeed the most troubling aspect of Christian eschatology; especially since it lacks any sort of future details and relies on fragments to paint a broader picture. In sum, the biblical portraits are fractured and leave us to gather up the various portions. However, for Schwarz the biblical tensions are less worrisome because “Christ anticipates the resurrection of the dead through his own resurrection, thus providing us with a foundation for hope” (96). The resurrection of Jesus is paradigmatic of our future experience and this is congruent with Paul and John’s teachings regarding this matter (1 Cor. 15; John 5:29).

The End.

Part two reflects the larger debate between science, secularism and philosophy as they all relate to eschatology. Schwarz covers discussions over various theologies including process, feminist, liberationist and pluralism: the advocates comprise Wolfhart Pannenberg, John Cobb, Jürgen Moltmann and Leonardo Boff among others. Each theologian’s perspective is examined and given a place at the table for a fair exchange, though not without critique. Process theology is specifically singled out and one must ask to what extent Christian doctrine is maintained amongst a pluralistic worldview—a point of view decidedly not shared by the New Testament. Because of this, Schwarz notes “Cobb’s proposal seems more akin to the Hellenistic striving for oneness as demonstrated by Platonic and Aristotelian ontologically grounded philosophy. The Christian faith, however, is characterized by individuality in unity” (169-170). This is a successful critique and could be pressed further to include the imagery of incorporation of human beings into Christ’s body, his Church (1 Cor. 12:12-28), illustrating the necessity of all Christians, American and other, citizen and immigrant, and male and female, to be one in status in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Individuality is maintained and corporatized, allowing personality to thrive within community. It is also worthy to note the claim that Scripture appears soteriologically exclusive rather than pluralistic, as the famous Shema  (Deut. 6:4) proclaims a strict Jewish monotheism. Paul also affirms (and expands) this famous text in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 to include Jesus (see Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology, Hendrickson, 2007, 88-94), making pluralism (and subsequent process thought) difficult to accept on the basis of biblical texts as the exclusive divinity of Christ is attested above all other faiths (John 14:6).

With his mind tuned to environmental concerns, Schwarz adds to the discussion concerning the ecological crisis, where “life is sustained only be exploiting the inanimate world” (195). Life feeds on life, and this appears to be an apocalyptic outcome of consumerist exploitation (196), which compounds the problem of the greenhouse effect (196-199) and overpopulation (201-202). The issue is that “humanity elevated itself into God’s place…and ‘for the glory of God’ was replaced by the glorification and deification of humanity” (205). We live in a seemingly limited creation and this brings up an ominous question: was earth meant to sustain human life forever? Human progress has taken a left turn in the dark and Schwarz thankfully recognizes that without hope, humankind has nothing left for itself: “…what can we, as Christians, actually offer in terms of the content of hope?” (243). Schwarz does not despair, and pushes on with the task of offering hope to a dying world.

In the final part of his work, Schwarz covers four controversial areas of Christian eschatology: setting an actual date for the end of all things, the millennium and its various flavors, universal salvation and purgatory. Schwarz flatly rejects any attempt to place a time to the coming of Christ as “not about outguessing the Lord but being faithful to the call” (321), and like many church fathers (Luther, Augustine) he discards the timetable method and opts for hope. In doing so, his points stands well under scrutiny as the New Testament never set a date to the return of Christ. As regards the millennium, He takes the greatest exception with dispensationalism and concurs with Dale Moody; “we could simply discard these [end times] theories as ‘undue speculation over highly symbolic teachings’” (335). The damage done by this apocalyptic teaching is not glossed over by Schwarz and it has no doubt “been misused for political and religious purposes” (336), especially within the context of modern fundamentalism which misses the purpose of apocalyptic imagery: to bring hope to those who are oppressed, “not…in a triumphalistic manner, but as a pastoral comfort” (337). Schwarz is certainly on point with this admonition, and those of us who have come out of fundamentalism will resonate because of the entrenched emphasis on the rapture and fighting culture wars instead of the necessity of justice for widows and orphans (James 1:27).

Oh Camping.

Considering the doctrine of universal salvation, Schwarz pointedly concludes “we have little biblical ground to go on for a universal homecoming or a restoration of all things to God” (337). In light of the numerous judgment texts in Scripture (Isaiah 66:24; Matt. 10:28; 25:41-46; Jude 7), one would concur that universal salvation is indeed a difficult theological proposition to embrace. However, Schwarz does not engage the strongest Universalist arguments from the basic proof texts (Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10). This reveals a missed chance to answer lingering questions in the minds of many evangelicals who opt for universalism on the basis of such verses.

Because of his his rejection of universalism, Schwarz is committed to the two-fold outcome of human destiny. Unfortunately, Schwarz leaves himself open to criticism from another side in the Christian debate as Annihilationists (or Conditionalists) would affirm the twofold outcome of eternal judgment and share his views of an eternal punishment. However, Schwarz rejects annihilationism in favor of eternal conscious torment (395-97; 402) by means of a question: “how can there be an annihilation of anybody if there is no escape from God, since God is everywhere, even in death and beyond death?” (396). The question is a non sequitur and one could answer it this way: as it took a divine act of creation to impute life into that which was lifeless (Gen. 2:7), so it is also a divine act of destruction when God destroys both body and soul (Matt. 10:28). Human finitude is evident in that only God is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and any life given to us is derived from the Creator, a sentiment that Schwarz explicitly affirms (257). Thus any eternal life, a phrase that seems restricted solely to the elect (e.g. Matt 19:16; 25:46; John 3:15-16, 36; 10:28; Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:23; Gal. 6:8), is denied to those not in Christ.

Curiously, while Schwarz mentions Oscar Cullmann several times throughout his book (73n, 119, 140), he betrays no awareness of the annihilationist arguments in Cullmann’s Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (Wipf & Stock, reprinted 2000). Cullmann’s words are powerful: “For Christian (and Jewish) thinking the death of the body is also destruction of God-created life. No distinction is made: even the life of our body is true life; death is the destruction of all life created by God” (Immortality, 11). Scripture seems to suggest death (Ps. 68:2; Is. 66:24; Luke 13:3,5; John 3:16; Rom. 6:23) and eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:9) as the end result of the wicked—not their eternal torment.  To suggest the traditional doctrine of eternal torment seems to promote a vision of final eschatological dualism, one that does not seem to fit comfortably into Schwarz’s theological vision of “the completion of the universe” (404).

@thenakedpastor. Wonderful art.

Eschatology must be seen not as despair, but as hope. Proleptic anticipation, which views the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the commencement of the event of new creation, is the operative lens by which Schwarz concludes his volume. We see everything in light of Christ, and we “anticipate proleptically this future along the avenue which the Christ event provides” (407). Schwarz has written a truly magisterial book and there is much to commend. His depth is illustrated by his familiarity of diverse theologians and his ability to faithfully represent their perspectives even though he may passionately disagree is a model of charity. The chapters relating to science, ecology and scientific reason were especially insightful, bringing material to light to readers who otherwise would not have known about external worldly developments. Because of this inclusion, theologians will now be able to further benefit the church, allowing us to both engage and learn more as we progress in mutual respect towards the future. While a reader may dispute his interpretation on certain doctrines (such as his lack of engagement with annihilationism and universalism), his irenic tone epitomizes Saint Paul’s admonition in Rom. 12:9-21, especially since we are called to “love one another with mutual affection” and we “extend hospitality to strangers.” 

It took everything in me to not jump back to old habits by giving this 4.5 stars. 

New Seminarian: Physicalism & Scripture

Well, I suppose the cat is out of the bag on this one. I lean towards what is called Christian 'physicalism' or 'materialism.' If those terms freak you out, don't worry, I don't use the latter term to describe myself.

Of course, if anyone describes himself or herself as a Christian hedonist, then they shouldn't complain about potentially confusing terms. Plus, then you have the honor of explaining your misleading use of terms. Which is fun.

Anyway.

Here is some of the paper I wrote for a scholarship. I don't think its my best, but I wrote it quickly. By no means am I settled on this position, but I most strongly identify with it.

Bertrand Russell wasn’t the first to say, “Philosophers used to think that there were definite substances, the soul and the body, each that lasted on from day to day, that a soul, once created, continued to exist throughout all future times...All that constitutes a person is a series of experiences connected by memory and by certain similarities we call habit.”2 From the times of Russell to the current anthropological debate, the soul has been under succinct investigation. In the biblical tradition, history offers us three basic conceptions of the human person. The first is physicalism where the human person is entirely physical, lacking a soul.3 The second and arguably most popular is dualism, the belief that the human person consists of two parts; body and soul/mind.4 The third option is less popular than dualism but more popular than physicalism is trichotomism, where the person is body, soul and spirit.5

Physicalism is the current mainstream concept and it can mean several different things and may go by several names. Speaking against a dualist account of human nature (body and soul/mind), Professor Nancey Murphy makes a very fair observation: “the terms ‘physicalist’ and ‘materialist’ are nearly interchangeable in philosophy but ‘physicalism’ is more fashionable now, and it is more appealing to Christians because ‘materialism’ has long been used to refer to a worldview6 that excludes the divine.”7 In theological terms, monism is often considered a more proper method of explaining the idea of mankind as purely physical. Rudolph Bultmann once stated, “man does not have a soma (body); he is soma (body).”8 Or rather, that a human being is a bio-psychosomatic whole, lacking in soul, being united fully and being fully human. While some may nuance the definition, most would agree with it in principle. 
 

While Scripture is of course reticent to use the term ‘physicalist,’ ‘dualist’ or ‘monist’ we will see that the imagery and language used is strong evidence that human beings are entirely physical, fearfully and wonderfully made. To this theological argument we now turn.

Christians have long thought that Scripture teaches several forms of body/soul dualism. However, there has been a resurgence of biblical scholarship that argues for a wholistic account of human nature and much of it centers on the Old Testament and the relationship between Paul and Jesus. Since biblical studies has only now begun to consider evidences from the biological and neurosciences, this shift cannot be dismissed as cultural influences. Rather, it is the product of sound exegesis. 

Theologically, Scripture speaks fluidly about human nature: we are “created in God’s image” in Genesis 1:26-27, suggesting that human beings are a climactic creative event; this distinguishes them from the animals and land.9 On the final day, God rests. We are told nothing about the spiritual natures of the first humans, except that all creation was very good – yet not perfect.10 The creation of human beings takes center stage in the second creation account in Genesis 2:4b-24, where Adam11 is formed from the dust of the ground (2:7), suggesting several things. First, God is capable of infusing inert matter with volition and life; and second, dirt is composed of things that have long since died. Not only are humans created ex creatio (out of creation), we were comprised of dead material and given life. This has enormous implications for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead12 but I must confine my passion to this specific argument. 
 

In the words of theologian Jurgen Moltmann, “soul and body are not analyzed as a person’s component parts.”13 This is echoed throughout the Old Testament, specifically with Deuteronomy 6:5: “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” The emphasis is not on anthropological partition, but on the whole person living out the closest thing ancient Israel had to a creed; to love YHWH is to love him with all of one’s self. The love of YHWH encompassed the totality of what it meant to be human. When a person dies, this is the death of the ‘soul’ or entire person (Lev. 19:28; 21:1; Num. 9:6-10; Hag. 2:12-13); what is also illustrated is that the ‘soul’ (nephesh) can be killed (Ez. 22:25-27; Judg. 16:30). This applies to the New Testament in Matthew 10:28, where body and soul can be “destroyed” in Gehenna. We find that “bashar” (flesh) can encompass the entire person (Ps. 63:1-2; 84:1-3) and it includes both rationality and emotion.14 

The physical nature of the body is drawn upon two assumptions: it came into existence, and it can go out of existence. This section is to show that physicalism has some grounding in Scripture, and that many Christian philosophers and scholars make their case from Scripture.15 Thus, the material nature of the human person applies significantly to the issue of abortion. As Peter Van Inwagen says, “It can hardly be denied that in the Hebrew Bible we are represented as living dust, dust into which the spirit of God has entered.”16

Just thinking it through.

--Nick 

1 In addition to this, even though a Christian is not entitled to accept materialism, one could argue for a pro-life position on the basis of materialism.
2 Bertrand Russell, “Do We Survive Death?” in Why I Am Not a Christian, 88, 89. Simon and Schuster, 1957.
3 Cf. Nancey Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? see also Did My Neurons Make Me Do It? Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? Warren Brown, Nancey Murphy, H. Newton Malony, Whatever Happened to the Soul?
4 Cf. J.P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics. John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting.
5 Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 260.

6 Nancey Murphy’s emphasis.
7 Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? 1-2.
8 Rudolph Bultmann, New Testament Theology, 1:194. Quoted in Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human life, 4 n. 9.
9 The same word for ‘soul’ (nephesh) that appears in the KJV is also applied to animals as well.
10 John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel, 64-67.
11 This is not a title, as in a name – but rather, it is literally (and colorfully) rendered as ‘earthling.’
12 See for example 1 Corinthians 15 as the pinnacle argument for the bodily resurrection. I will be presenting a paper discussing this very detail in greater depth this July at the inaugural Rethinking Hell conference in Houston, Texas.
13 Jurgen Moltmann, God in Creation, 256.
14 Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? 61.
15 See Samuele Bacchiocchi’s Immortality or Resurrection? Biblical Perspectives, 1997; Peter Van Inwagen, “Dualism and Materialism: Athens and Jerusalem.” Faith and Philosophy 12, no. 475-488; Kevin Corcoran, Rethinking Human Nature: A Christian Materialist Alternative to the Soul, Baker, Academic 2006; see also Soul, Body, and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons. Cornel University Press, 2001. 
16 Peter Van Inwagen, “I Look for the Resurrection of the Dead and the Life of the World to Come,”

Unpublished article,” 2. Accessed via andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Resurrection.doc 

For further resources, see Nancey Murphy "Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?", Glenn Peoples and also Peter van Inwagen.