Deflated Balloons and Eugene Peterson's Dictum

Eugene Peterson wrote, “Leisure is a quality of spirit, not a quantity of time” (The Contemplative Pastor, p.21). In reflecting on this single sentence for ten straight minutes, I realized I was fulfilling the Psalter’s words in Psalm 139:17: “How weighty to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!” To ponder the thoughts of God (interesting that they aren’t the words of God) itself takes “a quality of spirit,” but it also seems to require an illustration, as I have no words to describe it adequately. 

Imagine a balloon slowly deflating over a period of a day, air squeaking from the small hole until finally the balloon lies dispirited on the floor. Of course, this is not a positive event for the balloon, but it describes almost the cognitive sense that one needs in order to perform Peterson’s dictum.

I have done this exercise across the week, and will continue to do it today, and it helps slow everything down. In a world of wicked rapidity, taking the moment to deflate and focus on the sensation of thinking with God’s thoughts is an exercise of trepidation and interior renovation: these are anything but fun! But, the Scriptures coalesce around the idea of living in revelation and it seems the Paslter was right: “I try to count [God’s thoughts]—they are more than the sand” (Ps. 139:18a). 

Sometimes it helps to get lost in the ocean.

NQ

Will Men Fight Sexism? A Guest Post

My wife Allison originally posted this on her facebook. I now repost the entirety of it here with her permission.

Sexism exists in the United States in the broader culture and within the church and it is not fun.

Personally, I have been forced to think about sexism as a very real issue by virtue of merely existing as a woman studying theology and caring about the power of God and the Bible to change how we think and act. Something that has become immediately obvious is that many men (and women!) are simply unaware of the every day problems women face. This is not any individual man's fault. Part of the reality of being a man in this world means you will not have to face many of these situations yourself. For example, on my way to a conference at Fuller my husband tried to get my attention by honking incessantly. I didn't notice. I explained later that I always get honked at, whistled at or derogatory comments as I walk from A to Z dressed in jeans and a plain t-shirt. They were were surprised to hear it. I was surprised they didn't know. I take it for granted that men think I am the type of thing they can do this to. It is usually best to ignore it and keep walking.

If you (men) want to make a difference in your world then it is time to recognize these occurrences as they happen and be a good bystander and say something even if it has some minor personal cost to you. There are greater consequences if women speak up than if you do. If I speak up or get angry when someone is insulting I become written off as "emotional" or an "angry feminist." What this means is that I am not allowed to get angry and have to be as indifference to what is happening to me as possible if I want to be listened to. Generally speaking, I don't get angry though after several days of more overt sexism it gets tiring.

[Nick's comment]

I remember Allison's fingernails gripping my forearm, causing me to bite my tongue. It worked: she kept me from saying something quite offensive to the gentleman, and we ordered our food and went on our way. It wasn't the first time someone said something mildly sexist that weekend, but it certainly was the most memorable.


[End Nick's comment]

What other instances of sexism am I talking about?

Recently, at a conference I was giving a paper refuting the notion that universalism is taught in Romans 5. Beforehand while waiting in line for lunch at a nearby restaurant with my husband a well-meaning man we did not know decided he wanted to pray for my fertility. He asked if we wanted kids and after saying that we would like to adopt in five years (still not sure either way) he made an off color remark to Nick about Sarah only getting pregnant after Abraham prayed and said he wanted to pray for me to have children. I politely let him know that our needs were financial at the moment. He chose to ignore it and pray for my fertility any way after telling us his theology about God's command for me to fill the earth. Notice that Nick's fertility was not prayed for--I was awkwardly singled out and it was assumed that the greatest need of this person he had never met before was to have children. At the moment neither of us knew what to say. It was not unusual for me to have random weird experiences like this and I did not feel embarrassed at the time. Such is life. It was a good thing that I did not feel offended or upset because there were several other minor instances throughout the next couple of days and I needed to focus on reading my paper.

It is usual for me to initially be treated like I do not understand something and have it repeated to me. Something similar regularly happened to my friend Sarah at a Bible college. Even though she got better grades in class, men would regularly try and explain things to her or "help" her understand. I learned early in undergrad to simply repeat their position back to them along with the initial critique and not to be afraid to cut them off from too much repeating. Generally, I only have to "prove" myself the first time around. Another thing many men take for granted is that they will be automatically or more readily included in discussion in their field of study. I have to insert myself into the discussion and be above average to be considered average. Additionally, my contributions are easily compared to other women rather than other people or other scholars. If I do well I may be considered smarter than any women that person knows or if I do average or poorly I am yet another example of why women shouldn't...can't...don't...do this or that. In lists I am generally put alongside other women (coincidentally). I am compared to other women doing theology rather than other people doing theology.

In academia I am always in a no-win situation. If I show emotion I am written off as "emotional." If I am cut and dry and to the point (which happens to be my style whether by nature or nurture) I will be told I am more masculine--not a good thing if you are not a man and happy to be a woman. Sometimes, people are simply shocked that I have said something intelligent. Several times after speaking in some capacity I have been told how pretty I am along with compliments on my arguments, points, delivery...etc. Its not that I don't like being told I am pretty or that I don't think I am. It is simply out of place and odd given that these presentations have nothing to do with this. This is a problem another female friend of mine has who runs a non-profit. I do not know of any male friends who preach or give speeches who are regularly told they are attractive or handsome after they do well. They do not have this narrow and superficial part of themselves highlighted. Being beautiful just so happens to be something women are highly valued for in this society and it cannot help but make its way into every part of our lives.

In movies women are either damsels in distress or scantily clad super heroes who have sex with this or that person (a trend somewhat diminishing!). Female politicians are often sexualized in some way. Hilary is the "nut-cracker" and Palin is the hot ditz.

In common discussion "being a girl" means being weak, incapable, and emotional (supposedly having emotions makes one less objective). Being powerful as a woman means catering to the sexual appetites of men and manipulating them with it. I am supposed to like being called sexy even in a reductionistic way. Attractive, empowered women wear little. In many Christian conservative circles wearing anything revealing (sometimes just attractive) means you are a slut and on the whole we are regularly told that we are responsible for male lust and sin. "Don't 'cause' him to stumble."

There are consequences for women who try and excel in their fields and have a healthy dose of assertiveness to realize their goals. Their character and person often get attacked.

I was warned by someone at TEDS that my potential mentor for an internship Dr. Mimi Haddad was known to be aggressive. This made me nervous. After meeting her and knowing her for many years after this was revealed to be gender stereo-typing because the woman I met was merely assertive, intelligent and insightful.

I became friends with an old classmates Grandmother who likes to research, study Greek and Hebrew and taught herself Russian when in Russia because she could not afford a tutor. Although witty, she is very soft-spoken, gentle and kind. Curiously, many have said she is arrogant, rude and find her threatening. This labeling appears to occur at Bible studies when she timidly shares something she learned from one of her books or in the Greek.

Anytime I am assertive in any way I worry that I came off too strong. Maybe these experiences are why most of my female classmates (very few in number) at the undergrad and masters level stuttered when talking, or apologized for offering an idea and used many qualifiers ("sorry if this sounds..." "I could be wrong but..."). Anything to appear smaller or couch what was about to be said.

Many women who try to do something about any problems around them know they will be thought of as "the BITCH." This word has come up countless times from older and younger women I meet. Most of us do not swear. We find that if we are assertive this becomes our identity. The choice becomes, do we just take it or do we let ourselves become the bitch. We will be seen as aggressive, spiteful, petty, repulsive, whiny, manipulative, and threatening. Men who stand up for us may have their masculinity challenged.

From an early age girls are taught to be polite and selfless. In the real world we are less likely to interrupt when someone talks over us. I didn't even notice I was being interrupted repeatedly in class until my professor scolded the guy. When leading a table discussion on gender one of my classmates kept interrupting his wife every time she tried to give her opinion after I asked it (5x!). This was of course after he had asked me if I was able to be objective and not get upset about the discussion we were all about to have (he had never met me before). Often women are expected to be the ones to follow their husbands education, career, general wants and needs (though this is changing). Many women feel selfish when they have to speak over someone, insist on their way or even request doing something different than what others want to do. They can also feel rude, mean or selfish if they disagree in a public setting and may apologize.

We are regularly taught in church that God designed us to be the only one who is passive, and/or submissive, and/or self-sacrificing when being abused (think John Piper telling wives to endure abuse for a season).

I hear on the radio or in sermons men talk about how women should know their place. I hear how only I should submit. I hear how I should like being ruled over if my husband is nice to me. I hear about how I should give him sex all the time. Sometimes I hear that only a man is made in God's image. It goes on and on. I will also hear how we women are feminizing or taking over the church how the all male leadership is being oppressed for the convictions that women should be submissive...etc. Usually these men are preaching to the choir.

Sometimes someone who knows I am theologically an egalitarian will try and be shocking and say something about my husband having authority over me...etc. I am never shocked. I always hear this.

Such is life.

The Place and Priority of Single Women in Pauline Theology

A post I recently wrote for the Junia Project (you can read that here) has me thinking more about a claim I made therein:

Indeed, the marital status of most of the women and men who assisted in Paul’s extensive missionary activities (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:2-3) is rarely mentioned.

Now I fully stand by my statement (because I think it is largely correct), but it begs for more explanation and data, which I aim to provide.

It is quite common to see married couples within Paul doing missionary work. The famous couple Prisca and Aquila is most probably a married couple because they are mentioned together in multiple epistles and in various other writings in the New Testament. The fact that both Paul[1] and Luke[2] place Prisca’s name before Aquila is most often thought to be because of her status. 2 out of 3 references in Paul concerning Prisca place her before her husband (Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19) – a fairly uncommon practice as many have pointed out.[3]

Andronicus and Junia are thought to be a married couple, but I think it is somewhat ambiguous. We have no record of them outside of this one reference, though if Bauckham and others are correct, we do have multiple references to her in Luke (8:3; 24:10).[4] The references in Luke specify she was married to “Herod’s steward.” If they are married, they were still missionaries together: same as Prisca and Aquila.

Paul, however, was unmarried for what seems to be most of his epistles. We see this most clearly in 1 Cor. 7: “I wish that everyone was as I am” (θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν). The most likely implication is that Paul is single and probably celibate. He did not consider it to be a problem for an unmarried man or woman: most likely, it was due to the call of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12). One’s status was not a problem for participation and fellowship within the body (Gal. 3:26-29), and Paul did not want even slaves to fear their exclusion, and encouraged them to gain their freedom (1 Cor. 7:21).[5]

In Romans 16:1-2 we have Phoebe (Φοίβην), who is “our sister” (τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν).[6] It would be common for a husband to be named, but none are in this text. Paul specifies that Phoebe herself was “a patroness of many, and especially to me” (αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ). Her status as διάκονον was no hindrance to her as a single sister in Christ.

The text in Romans 16:6 speaks of this “Mary, who has worked very hard (ἐκοπίασεν) among you.” The same aorist active verb is applied also in Romans 16:12 to three other women who exercised work ἐν Κυρίῳ: Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis. Persis is even called “the beloved” (τὴν ἀγαπητήν), illustrating Paul’s awareness and love for her. These women worked within a world that did not value them nearly to the extent that Paul did. It is likely that Tryphaena and Tryphosa were still working at the time Paul was writing, as he uses a present active participle (κοπιώσας) to indicate their continued involvement in the church at Rome. All of these women mentioned in Romans 16 are not mentioned as married except for someone’s mother (16:13) and Paul even mentions this unnamed mother! A strong showing of active women in the church of God, and others send their love because Paul writes “All the churches of Christ greet you” (αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ): it is possible that other men in these churches would have been aware of these women and their activity.

I mentioned in the Junia Project post that Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3) were not married. They labored (συνήθλησάν) together with Paul (μοι), and along with all of the other “co-workers” (συνεργῶν). Their status in Christ is assured, and they are not mentioned as being married, though an oblique reference to Clement could point to one of them being his wife or brother or fellow-worker. We simply do not know of their marital status.

Three other women deserve mentioning. Apphia (Philemon 1:2) is called “the sister” (τῇ ἀδελφῇ). Some translations believe that this is meant to convey “our sister” and some commentators believe that Apphia was Philemon’s wife. However, Paul does not refer to Apphia as γυναικὸς but as ἀδελφῇ. This likely means she was not his wife, but rather involved within the household in some form. She is not called a wife, a slave, or anything: ἀδελφῇ is the noun Paul uses and he leaves it at that. It is certainly likely that she is single and it is not uncommon for single women to live with their family, so maybe Philemon is her brother.

In Col. 4:15, Paul greets Nympha and also “the church that meets in her house” (καὶ τὴν κατ᾿ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν). It is curious that Paul does not mention her husband at all, either as “head” of the home, or as a “mutual partner.” It is possible that a wealthy single woman could own a home, so her singleness included facilitating a Christian atmosphere and the sharing of resources within the early community of Christians.

In 1 Cor. 1:11, Paul refers to a woman named Chloe, who is written in the genitive form (Χλόης), indicating a possessive genitive that indicates her oversight over these people who gave Paul some information. Again, her marital status is not mentioned or stated. It is ambiguous, but we can rest in the belief that Paul saw no reason to mention her husband, should she have had one.

Of course, all of my arguments do not hinge on new discoveries. It is certainly possible that these women were married, but is equally likely (more likely in my opinion) that their marital status was not an issue. The mere fact that Paul does not emphasize their status as married means that it was likely not largely relevant to him. Much more could be added, but in summation single and married women have a place in our churches and we ought not exclude single women from ministry.

Paul certainly didn't. 

NQ

[1] Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19, if by Paul.
[2] Luke specifies that Aquila and Prisca are together (Acts 18:2) by the use of γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. All of Luke’s reference to this couple is found in ch18. 2 out of 3 references place her first, the same ratio as in Paul.
[3] Sandra Hack Polaski, A Feminist Introduction to Paul (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005), 45: “It is unusual to see the woman’s name listed first. This practice implies that Prisca is the more prominent member of the couple, possibly because she is of higher social class but perhaps more likely because she is the more important church leader.”
[4] Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 165-185.
[5] Philip Payne, “Twelve Reasons to Understand 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 as a Call to Gain Freedom,” manuscript. link  
[6] The use of the article τὴν specifies who Phoebe is: our sister.

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

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

Echoes of the Old Testament in Revelation 13

In reading Revelation, one cannot imagine a more Old Testament saturated New Testament epistle. The imagery in ch.13 depicts a monstrous behemoth arising from the sea, a place of bubbling chaos that in other texts gives way to a Leviathan (Job 3:8). This multifaceted beast is most probably derived from Daniel 7, especially as it is similar to various animals found there (a bear and a leopard in Dan. 7:5-6; c.f. Rev. 13:2). John of Patmos describes this beast as singular, whereas Daniel describes it as a plurality and both beasts act similarly: speaking with arrogance (Dan. 7:8) or uttering blasphemies (Rev. 13:5). John’s singular beast has many of the same characteristics as Daniel’s three other beasts, but John seems to blend these allusions together. For example, the beast has the body of a leopard (v.2), feet of a bear (v.2), and a mouth like a lion (v.2): all of these characteristics are found in the individual beasts in Daniel 7:4-6. Daniel’s story culminates with the fourth final beast in Dan. 7:7 where it is described as “different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns,” which is echoed in John’s telling of the story in Rev. 13:1, where the beast described also has ten horns. Perhaps John sees and uses Daniel 7 in a blended fashion, using each separate image to inform a collective entity.
 

A quotation is found in Rev. 13:10. In Jeremiah 15:2, God is responding to what appears to be apostasy committed by his people, and when God quotes his people as saying “where shall we go” he responds as such:

“Those destined for pestilence, to pestilence, and those destined for the sword, to the sword; those destined for famine, to famine, and those destined for captivity, to captivity.”

The incorporated imagery suggests that John is keen to invoke the history of apostasy in Israel, with the hope that this inserted image will jar his readers into remembering what happens to them when they worship other gods. In Jeremiah 15:3, God follows this up with this phrase “I will appoint over them four [my emphasis] kinds of destroyers…” and he describes these kinds as various animals that consume life. This suggests a warning also to those who would forsake God in times of persecution. 

The phrase “the book of life” appears at least once in the Old Testament. Psalm 69:28 refers to “the book of the living.” Contextually, the reference in Psalm 69:28 refers to the security of the believer of being included in God’s deliverance from oppression. This climaxes in 13:10 where John uses “the book of the living” as “a call for the endurance and faith of the saints” (v.10). The call for perseverance in the face of abomination and desolation is mighty in John’s apocalyptic narrative and it is one that all should heed.

NQ

Mutuality, Solidarity, and Singleness in Corinth: Musings

Small Church in Corinth

Corinth was similar in so far as they believed one could be involved in sexual conduct without any repercussions. While many in the church today would not yoke themselves to that, a church—and society—that is steeped in “victimless” pornography is not far removed from the sexual conduct in Corinth.

Another pressing issue for Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 is mutuality in marriage, and singleness for other brothers and sisters. What is more fascinating about this is how Paul presents a picture of husband and wife yielding to one another; in a culture that prioritizes the individual over and against the corporate nature of community, Paul’s admonitions are precise and completely at odds with how the evangelical church functions. In Christian circles, marriage is the prime rib of human experience, and singleness is viewed as a problem. Paul’s preference for both men and women to remain single in the Lord shows us two things: first, Paul did not view singleness as separation from a community of believers, but that they would be united to a community and able to serve more fully as a community. Second, Paul wants both men and women, single or married, to be full participants within the community of Christ. 

We need to encourage singleness in our churches, and maybe demonstrate this as brothers and sisters who embody the single life for the Christians who cannot be married (whether they be gay or straight). Solidarity with the other is a Christian virtue, and we tarnish it by not participating in the life of all the members of our community. Paul is eminently practical here.

NQ

And YHWH Remembered Hannah: Reflections on 1 Samuel

MY CONTEXT

A preacher does not usually give a sermon from 1 Samuel. This is common in much of evangelicalism, and it is certainly an experience I share. The Old Testament is generally set aside in favor of the New Testament, in the same way that one trades in a jalopy for a modern sports car. However, the most gripping element of this text is the reference to a “nazarite” in v11; my mind immediately returned to the story of Samson and the concept of being set apart. Because of this, I feel like I have always missed the centrality of Hannah who, in some sense, is the one who is set apart from the beginning and she is the one who sets Samuel apart. Because of the centrality of Samuel’s mother Hannah to this chapter (and the beginning narrative as a whole), I feel that the chapter is far more sensitive towards women than I previously imagined when I first read it.

CO-TEXT

My former film professor would always stress to use that the first ten minutes of the film were always the most important. It has to hook the audience in and give sufficient reason to justify the remainder of the film. I sense that this integrates quite well with 1 Samuel 1. For instance, we sense that Hannah is the underdog, beloved by her husband, but barren and at the mercy of her husband’s other wife. The themes of promise and fulfillment are present, as Hannah makes a pledge to God for a son, and God remembers her and fulfills her promise.

A larger theme is Divine Remembrance, as God remembered Noah (8:1), Abraham (19:29), Rachel (30:22), and many other patriarchs and matriarchs. Another potential theme is that Hannah seems to be consistently misunderstood, by both her husband Elkanah (v8, “am I not more to you than ten sons?”) and the priest Eli who chastises her as a drunk (v.14). The trajectory of the narrative pushes us toward Samuel, but through the witness of his mother. We, of course, sense the parallel with Samson who was a Narazite (Number 6; Judges 13:5-7), though we are uncertain about the future of the potential son of Hannah, for Samson’s tale ultimately ended in violence and death. Will Samuel share in Samson’s fate? However, for the purpose of this chapter, both Hannah and God are at center stage among many participants, co-texts, and players.

TEXT AND OBSERVATIONS

1Sam. 1:1 There was a certain man of Ramathaim, a Zuphite from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. 2 He had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

Culturally, Elkanah’s having two wives does not seem to warrant special attention from an ethical standpoint. What is interesting, however, is the instruction found in Deuteronomy 21. Elkanah was apparently not dissatisfied with Hannah not being able to conceive, for the Torah stated that if he were unsatisfied, he could release her (though he could not sell her or treat her as a slave, v14). The lineage is interesting, as Jeroham is a name mentioned all throughout 1 Chronicles. What is most fascinating is Deuteronomy 21:15-16’s brief instruction to a man with two wives, and how there is no preference to be shown to the children, even if the man preferred one wife over the other. Yet in the 1 Samuel narrative, Peninnah’s children are not mentioned by name. One wonders if this is incidental or not, and has implications for Samuel perhaps being the preferred child from Elkanah’s preferred bride. Hannah’s not having children (אֵ֥ין) is the same particle used of Sarai in Gen. 11:30, suggesting a possible narrative continuity.

1Sam. 1:3 Now this man used to go up year by year from his town to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the LORD.

Why is it that Elkanah goes alone? Are women not permitted or encouraged to worship and sacrifice to God at Shiloh? I confess to finding this odd. An interesting note is my Hebrew interlinear places two Hebrew nouns side by side and translates them as “yearly yearly.” One wonders if this is intentional, or is Elkanah is representing them all implicitly.

1Sam. 1:4 On the day when Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters; 5 but to Hannah he gave a double portion, because he loved her, though the LORD had closed her womb.

It is fascinating to consider Elkanah’s preference for Hannah in this section. In an ancient context, it seems that he’s going above and beyond many husbands. The fact that Deuteronomy 21 and elsewhere had to present rules about how husbands may or may not treat their wives indicates that mistreatment abounded. Indeed, the mentioning of “sons” here possibly foreshadows that possible preferential treatment of Samuel would be forthcoming. It seems that מָנָ֥ה includes a semantic range involving “distribution” and “choice selection.”

What an interesting final part of a verse. God closed her womb. A similar scenario is presented in Genesis 29:31 regarding Leah and Rachel. In some sense this may be intended to provoke a response from Hannah (which will happen later), but it could also be a reference to a tragic state of affairs involving Hannah’s age (as the reference to “year by year” in v.3 may indicate some significant passage of time). Either way, God has a hand in this and it is certainly ambiguous.

1Sam. 1:6 Her rival used to provoke her severely, to irritate her, because the LORD had closed her womb. 7 So it went on year by year; as often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she used to provoke her. Therefore Hannah wept and would not eat. 8 Her husband Elkanah said to her, “Hannah, why do you weep? Why do you not eat? Why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?”

A repeated reference to God’s activity on Hannah’s body, but we now have external pressure placed upon Hannah, and this adds up “year” upon “year” (c.f. v.3). I imagine this was an awkward and troubling dinner setting for Hannah, especially as the years have passed by with her rival wife provoking her. It is somewhat humorous in a dark way, as Elkanah seems to attempt to understand Hannah, but completely misses the issue. In some ways, he answers his own question with “why are you sad” when he ends with the comment about “ten sons.” I wonder if Hannah felt incredibly burdened due to the cultural expectation placed on wives to bear children, and that she was somehow a failure as a wife by not being also a mother. Elkanah is certainly not lacking in empathy, and this makes him a nuanced and compelling supporting character.

1Sam. 1:9 After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah rose and presented herself before the LORD. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the LORD. 10 She was deeply distressed and prayed to the LORD, and wept bitterly. 11 She made this vow: “O LORD of hosts, if only you will look on the misery of your servant, and remember me, and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a male child, then I will set him before you as a nazirite until the day of his death. He shall drink neither wine nor intoxicants, and no razor shall touch his head.”

Aside from the uncomfortable dinner, Hannah’s distress seems to climax here as she prays. She acts of her own volition to promise her son, seemingly against a cultural expectation that the (potential) father would have control over this matter. Given Elkanah’s previous tenderness towards her, one can assume that she did so of her own freedom and knowing he would not challenge a pledge to God. Her prayer is especially powerful: “do not forget your servant.” This is deeply haunting, especially in light of the tale of the oppressed in all lands who are not remembered. Will God remember her, is the essential question. Psalm 10:12 seems to sum this up nicely with “Rise up, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand; do not forget [my emphasis] the oppressed.” תִשְׁכַּ֣ח seems to sometimes be used in the context of imploring God not to forget the one in distress (Ps. 44:24; 74:19; Proverbs 4:5) and its an apt verb for Hannah to use here.

As it happened in Judges where Israel went astray into violence and depravity, the reader here may be curious about how this new nazirite will behave under God’s command. She assumes sovereignty over Samuel’s destiny, declaring for him to be a nazirite and the ethical restrictions on the life of a nazarite are similar to the one’s prescribed in Numbers 6 and the reference is clearly parallel to Samson’s hair in Judges 13:5, “for no razor shall touch his head.”

1Sam. 1:12 As she continued praying before the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying silently; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard; therefore Eli thought she was drunk. 14 So Eli said to her, “How long will you make a drunken spectacle of yourself? Put away your wine.” 15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman deeply troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD. 16 Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation all this time.”

Eli is surprisingly harsh for a priest. For it says that Hannah was not making any noise. In some sense, one wonders to what extent Eli is comparable to a jaded pastor who thinks they have seen it all already. Perhaps it is a sexist attitude, a presumption that Eli offers in bitterness. If this is not the first time Hannah has arrived to the house of the Lord, is there a chance she has come in drunk before, and Eli is referring to the past where she did so? Or does grief simply overwhelm her and it is a visible equivalent to being intoxicated? Given also that she is known as someone who cannot bear children (presumably), his condescension reveals a deeply embedded cultural prejudice towards the role and worth of a woman. Hannah’s response, however, is gracious and straightforward. She may placate him with self-depreciation (c.f. the “worthless woman” comment) and makes it about her deep personal grief, hoping to strike a chord with Eli.

1Sam. 1:17 Then Eli answered, “Go in peace; the God of Israel grant the petition you have made to him.” 18 And she said, “Let your servant find favor in your sight.” Then the woman went to her quarters, ate and drank with her husband, and her countenance was sad no longer. 19 They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the LORD; then they went back to their house at Ramah. Elkanah knew his wife Hannah, and the LORD remembered her.

Eli seems to relent from some of his condescension, and blesses her. Hannah returns to the table to eat and fellowship with Peninnah and Elkanah. The significance of a return to fellowship and a meal cannot be underestimated. Throughout the Old Testament it seems that to eat and drink with another person is to be in communion with them (Ex. 24:11), or in some cases be seen in excess (Judges 19). That Hannah returns to fellowship with her husband seems to indicate that she is relieved and at peace. The emphasis on they both going together in the morning to worship suggests a repair in the relationship, whereas Elkanah is the only one mentioned at the beginning to who goes and worships (c.f. v.2-3). Maybe this was the first time Hannah knew that God has heard, and to be heard is to be affirmed in a truly human sense: to be known by God is a wonderful Old Testament theme (Psalm 44:21).

The reference to “knew his wife” is a fairly word (וַיֵּ֤דַע) found throughout the Old Testament referring to sexual intercourse (Adam and Eve in Gen. 4:25), though it is not limited to sexual intercourse in some circumstances. In other instances the word seems to refer to mental knowledge (2 Chron. 33:13); the implied writer of this story seems to use the word in a fuller sense. Elkanah knew and knew his wife.

1Sam. 1:20 In due time Hannah conceived and bore a son. She named him Samuel, for she said, “I have asked him of the LORD.”

I’ve heard that Samuel does not precisely mean, “I have asked him of the LORD.” Instead, a friend who knows Hebrew said it is something like “heard of [or from] God.” This makes good sense, as it seems to place the activity of God’s hearing (or remembering) to the forefront as the one who “heard” and “acted.” This all happened in due time, which may intimate that Hannah becoming with child was the point all along. I’m reminded of St. Paul’s doxological proclamation in Romans 11:33: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” What is most powerful is that this episode occurs after Hannah and Elkanah (if they were ever at odds) seem to have reconciled fully with one another. The birth of Samuel is thus a consequence of a restored marriage, with implications possibly towards a restored Israel, though this remains to be seen.

1Sam. 1:21 The man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and to pay his vow. 22 But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, that he may appear in the presence of the LORD, and remain there forever; I will offer him as a nazirite for all time.” 23 Her husband Elkanah said to her, “Do what seems best to you, wait until you have weaned him; only—may the LORD establish his word.” So the woman remained and nursed her son, until she weaned him.

This time, perhaps because of the previously restored relationship, Elkanah’s entire household comes with him, unless we were meant to believe that Elkanah was representing his entire household as a type of figurehead. It is interesting that Hannah has the freedom to refuse to go up to the house of the Lord, telling her husband (presumably for the first time) that she has made a vow, which Elkanah takes with the utmost seriousness as vows are highly esteemed in Israel. Numbers 30:2-3 mentions both men and women making vows, so Hannah is certainly with Torah to make an independent vow to God provided Elkanah does not disagree. He does not, a seemingly more sensitive man. This is, after all, his son too.

The question lingers, however, about why Hannah did not immediately take Samuel to Eli. Perhaps she wanted to be more involved in his upbringing, and I cannot fathom the pain of giving up your only child. Maybe she is staving off the inevitable, but I suspect it is because she knows she has freedom to take her own initiative.

1Sam. 1:24 When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine. She brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh; and the child was young. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli. 26 And she said, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the LORD. 27 For this child I prayed; and the LORD has granted me the petition that I made to him. 28 Therefore I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he is given to the LORD.”

She left him there for the LORD.

 

For me, the most interesting part of this text is the paragraph break in the NRSV. The emphasis is surely upon the final sentence, as Hannah’s final word to Samuel is “he is given to the LORD.” In cinematic terms, it is the final lingering shot that the camera holds, watching Hannah turn and leave Samuel there. It is powerful that Hannah is grateful to God for Samuel and says that she has “lent” (הִשְׁאִלְתִּ֙הוּ֙) him to God. It looks like this is the only time that specific word appears in the Old Testament, so this usage is especially significant to the implied writer’s narrative. Does Hannah harbor some optimism for Samuel to be returned to her someday, hope against all hope? According to the rest of the Samuel character arc, this does not happen. The story suggests otherwise, and one suspects that Hannah, based on her interaction with God and the fulfillment of his promise, that there may yet be mercy. It does not make her story a tragedy, but reveals the humanness of finite human beings. In the end, we hope for Hannah and Samuel’s reunion—this side or the next.

FINAL INTERPRETATION

The author is intent on setting up a grand story, but takes an entire chapter to establish the bleakness of the human condition as seen through the eyes of a barren wife. This prologue forces us to consider Samuel’s unique upbringing and his future through the lens of a broken society that has yet to be fully healed, and the importance of this is to establish, ultimately, the working of God in human history. The original audience likely saw Samuel as a mighty man, a man conceived from a strong woman through the power and promise of God, with the intent to restore Israel. The beginning of Samuel is filled with pain and loss, but also fulfillment and hope. God in his mercy has not forgotten us and God in his love did not forget them.

Preaching Textual Variants? John 7:53-8:11

This is based on an assignment I did. Of course, this is not intended to be in-depth. For some helpful work on textual criticism, see Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman. The picture is of Luke 11:2 and it is from Codex Sinaiticus (compiled around 330-360 CE, generally).

Various modern English translations confirm in footnotes that John 7:53-8:11 is an interpolation. The CEB notes that “critical editions of the Gk New Testament do not contain 7:53-8:11” and the NRSV supports this with “most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.” Metzger explains that John’s pericope is missing from the “most early and diverse manuscripts” (Metzger, 187). There are external factors besides its manuscript omission: early church fathers don’t quote it until the twelfth century, showing a lack of awareness of the text in question (Metzger, 188) and that it also appears in multiple locations through John’s Gospel as the NRSV footnote states. This shows that scribes were uncertain about its placement within the narrative.

The text’s addition may have been due to a scribe’s belief in the truthfulness of the account, and because of this they had little issue in trying to place it within the narrative. Coupled with this, the story is moving and shows Jesus in a consistent and compassionate light (c.f. his interactions with the unmarried Samaritan woman in John 4). After all, Metzger acknowledges, “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity” (Metzger, 188) as a self-contained story. It may have happened, but John in his original Gospel did not include it.

In explaining this text, a minister must be careful to gently articulate the problems. Text-criticism is a highly specialized field, and requires precision and clarity in explaining the various complexities of the issue. Part of the issue may involve the long, steady process of educating a congregation. It is not as simple as ignoring an issue, especially in an age of Internet experts and popular level works from Barth Ehrman. Educating the congregation would establish a base in the more conservative areas of the Christian family, especially since there are many conservative textual scholars (c.f. Bruce Metzger and Philip Barton Payne) who have not abandoned their faith.

As for preaching this text, one again has to be careful not to overstress historical critical issues to a congregation, for fear of undermining one’s faith. A pastor has several options: she could mention the text critical aspects of this text by pointing to the footnotes in the Bible and suggest that these issues could be covered in greater detail in an adult bible study apart from the main sermon. Some pastors—such as Greg Boyd—do video blogs after their sermons on the more technical aspects of the text. I would personally have no problem preaching from John 7:53-8:11, provided my congregation was aware of the issues within the text, and I would happily explain it in greater detail on the side to anyone interested. Scripture is, after all, an open book and all great and inspired books have history.

NQ

Paul on Christian Spirituality

In thinking about spirituality from a modern context, one gets the strong sense that spirituality is divorced from physicality, or embodied living. It is seen as dissimilar from the mind, and is projected—in some sense—into the realm of metaphysics. Thus, for many Christians, it has little to with how one lives in any embodied sense. Rather, it is exercising the soul and reducing the body to a secondary tier. 



Outside the church I believe many people do view spirituality in a more holistic sense, ala yoga or meditation. Thus in the Church, spirituality is seen as something distinct from materiality.

For Paul, I suspect it is the opposite. I am reminded of Romans 8:23, “the redemption [or liberation] of our bodies.” Paul seemed to believe redemption, in some sense, affected the physical body, and thus did not view these things as opposed to one another; after all, we are not redeemed ‘from’ our bodies. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul spends half the chapter discussing ‘how’ the body will be transformed into a “spiritual body.” Spirituality is not a metaphysical abstraction, but something that touches the totality of a human person. Spirituality seems to be in a mutual dance with physicality, and Paul’s modus operandi does not appear to divorce the two. Rather, they are united, such as the church is united to one another (c.f. 1 Cor. 12). So we are quite different from Paul, and this is something in which we ought to tremble.

NQ

Resurrection as Liberation (Rom. 8:23)

τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν.

“…the liberation of our bodies.” Romans 8:23b.

All of creation has been groaning under the bondage of slavery and the forces of death. In some sense, human beings are tied to this. A certain echo can be found in Exodus, where Israel was under the oppression of a foreign power.

Paul seems to press this into something more unique, as we await the “ransom” or “liberation” of our bodies. The genitive use indicates that this ransom is not “from” or “out of” our bodies, but rather ransoming’ of our bodies.

The flesh (that is, the entirety of the human person) is ransomed, likely from death.

The reference to the “απαρχηε” (first fruits) is likely in line with Paul’s view of resurrection, with Christ as the “απαρχηε” of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-28). In that context, Death is seen as task-master, and death-dealer, as king or as one who reigns over (ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος). The personification of θάνατος (with an article) likely indicates that Paul viewed Death as an impersonal yet ‘living’ force, something that had the ability to dominate or control. Yet, through the resurrection of Christ, θάνατος has no power over those who attach themselves to Christ. In this sense, we are liberated from the oppression of death. In the same way as Israel was oppressed by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, so did God ransom them from said oppression.

Yet this is uniquely personal. It affects a corporate group of those in Christ, and yet it affects their bodies as well. It is the setting free of something from something.

The writer also indicates that Christ is a ransom in 1 Timothy 2:6 “αντιλυτρον,” though death is not within the immediate context and it is not certain what we are ‘ransomed’ from. Perhaps the “kings and those in authority” in v2. See also the ransoming of Titus 2:14 (λυτρώσηται), the purification of the people of God.

The adoption of us is the salvation of a people from death, from oppression. The body, both individually and corporately, is healed and restored. Resurrection, then, is liberation.

Just some thoughts.

NQ

Brief Musings about Liturgy

I'm a member of the American Baptist Church USA. We're all over the map theologically, as it were. Some of fundamentalist, some are quite liberal. Yet we are united on key doctrines such as the resurrection, the priesthood of all believers, etc.

So it may strike some as odd that I would be attending an African-American Episcopal church here in Pasadena. Well, it is kind of odd. Our priest is a British dude, we have a woman deacon (which is awesome), and we do the whole wine and bread thing seriously (using actual wine). At my old churches, we were crazy for going for the more pricey brand of grape drink. So its been an experience considering much of my church background has been in low church settings ala Calvary Chapel.

The worship is different, the communion setting is different, the fellowship is different. Everything is just different.

And its awesome.

I never got liturgy as a kid, so I do wonder what my life would have been like had I been around the old hymns and settings. Good Lord the smells. I now associate recently extinguished candles and their pungent smoke with liturgy. Wisps of white that ascend and mingle in the air, letting us know service is over and yet not over. Liturgy, for me, is a manner of reflection, a time to meander in my mind about the previous day and the future week.

Liturgy, in essence, is rumination. Considering the effects of the the resurrection, of living a life in the tension between the Kingdom of God and the effects of Ferguson. Since the church is predominantly African-American, I'm privy to the conversations and laments of mothers and brothers and fathers and sisters who know and speak on them weekly.

Deacon Jamie spoke. Rev. Goldingay spoke. All of us speak on race, but with an eye towards reconciliation. Towards forgiveness. We sing each service old African hymns, modern classics and end it usually with this famous diddy:

"This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine."

"Go into the world, just go, to love and serve the Lord. Hallelujah, hallelujah."  says Deacon Jamie.

And what a broken, bitter, painful, wonderful world it is.

NQ

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

Divine Remembrance and the Redemption of Our Bodies

 

This was a rough portion of my final project for Dr. Crisp's course. Enjoy!

“…We ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” –Rom. 8:23.

One is hard pressed to consider a more sensitive topic than death. In coming to the conclusion that human persons are fully but not merely physical creatures, I am forced to ask how physicalism affects the nature of resurrection life. How are Christians raised in bodies fit for the life to come, or as an interlocutor demanded of St. Paul, “with what kind of body do they come?” Because of this, I've come up with a theory titled the Doctrine of Divine Remembrance (TDDR) and how it may answer the question of resurrection and translate into difficult pastoral situations involving loved ones who are passing into death. Because of this, one must first reflect upon the nature of God revealed to Israel, the people in the New Testament, and how He relationally interacts with human creatures.

TDDR may be illustrated like this: upon the death of the human person, She would cease to exist; like spilt water upon the dusty earth, like smoke that vanishes in the wind, like wind that whispers through the trees, she is simply no more. All that was alive is now gone. However, as we understand God’s omniscience and love for creation, He could remember everything about her, as if her blueprint were fully known and stored in the mind of God himself: as God is involved in the birth of a child, then he knows each atom that comprises the entire person. Every strand of neural fiber and muscle memory is found, annotated and backed up into God’s memory for the final resurrection, which involves the restitution of matter into a human being. One’s signature is engraved upon its DNA.

Scripture speaks both corporately and individualistically as regards the language that I am using in support of TDDR. For example, YHWH calls Israel to not forget their deliverance from their oppressors in Egypt (Deut. 6:12), and He does not forget the cry of the afflicted (Ps. 9:12; 10:12). Christians are called to not exercise vengeance, but to leave that to God, who alone can repay, which assumes that He remembers the good and evil done in and to the body. The use of feminine divine representation in Second-Isaiah 49:15 speaks of a maternal bond between YHWH and Israel, where YHWH is the one who does not forget Israel—even in exile. There are two final individual examples of TDDR and they both include the promise of new life: first, after Hannah prayed for a child, YHWH remembered her and she gave birth to Samuel, not forgetting her in her time of despair (1 Samuel 1). The second example is broader and argues that Mary’s stirring Magnificat in Luke 1 is a fulfillment of First Testament prophecy, where God “helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, according to the promise he made to our ancestors” (v54-55). Because God did not forget or forsake his people, Mary could look forward to the incarnation of the Word and the restoration of the world.

There is ample biblical material to establish TDDR as a reasonable concept. Because of this, the blueprint of the human person is cataloged to await the redemption—the resurrection—of the body. The main matter, however, concerns the pastoral implications of TDDR. This is necessary because Christian faith is not merely an intellectual exercise; rather also all theology must be done to build up of the body of Christ and empower her to offer hope to all people.

TDDR emphasizes that life, in all its significance and fullness, is what awaits us instead of nothingness. It offers this life to all people (John 3:16). This is why a Christian physicalist can hope for the redemption of her body: as matter, she matters. As a child of God, she is remembered and loved and empowered with eternal life by the Spirit through Christ for the Father. Without TDDR and the resurrection, she is literally nothing. That is why we hope for God’s remembrance on the last day, why we hope for the redemption of our bodies, and why we faithfully confess the last stanza of the Apostles Creed:

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,

The communion of saints,

The forgiveness of sins,

The resurrection of the body,

And the life everlasting,

Amen.

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