Born of a Woman

This was written for Oliver Crisp's course. I'm actually not a huge fan of this paper, and have plenty to improve upon. In my defense, I had less time than I would have liked to prepare this project, and I had an extra few thousand words that I wanted to include. So if this feels trimmed, that is likely why.

BORN OF A WOMAN

The Coherence of Preexistence and the Virgin Birth in Pauline Theology 

For many, the doctrine of the virgin birth (VB) is a clear testimony found in the New Testament, but for others it is a conundrum—whether it is for scientific or doctrinal reasons. The theological issues continue when St. Paul’s affirmations of the preexistence (PE) of the Son of God arise in the New Testament. When many theologians view VB and PE side by side, both doctrines become remarkably difficult to embrace. This paper endeavors to explanation how the doctrine of PE and the VB are not at odds, but are rather coherent and compatible concepts within Pauline theology.

1. THE “PROBLEM” OF THE VB

The Nicene Creed manages to affirm both the PE of Jesus Christ and his VB. Although many scholars accept some form of PE in Paul’s writings, many are quick to point out that he does not affirm (or is silent about) the VB. Andrew T. Lincoln concedes St. Paul’s high Christology, “which includes the notion of the pre-existence of Christ,” but is quick to counter with “but a virginal conception plays no part in this and it is almost certain that he did not know of such a tradition.”[1] Eminent theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg writes that the VB “stands in an irreconcilable contradiction to the Christology of the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God found in Paul and John.”[2] Raymond Brown also mentions this tension.[3] The belief is that the gospel ‘legends’ “Jesus first became God’s Son through Mary’s conception.”[4] This is further compounded by Lincoln’s emphasis that the Pauline texts affirm Jesus’ humanity, not his VB. He writes, “all three passages [Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7] simply assume Jesus’ full humanity in his birth and show no interest in the circumstances of the birth itself.”[5] These are serious charges—coming as they do from serious Christians—and they help lay out the task before us: is the PE of the Son of God and the VB at odds with one another within the contours of Pauline theology?

2. ECHOES FROM THE GOSPELS

The Gospel of Matthew confirms that Joseph had not known Mary, as the phrase “but before they lived together” states (Matt. 1:18). This would imply that sexual activity would commence upon their living together, which is in the near future. Luke simply affirms her virginity and simultaneous engagements to Joseph (Luke 1:26-27). Pannenberg sees these accounts as presenting us with an adoptionistic Christology[6] and seems to agree with Emil Brunner who should be quoted in full: “If it is true that Matthew and Luke are simply dealing with the question: how did the Person of the Redeemer come into existence? And not with the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, this is a Christological view which the church cannot accept.”[7] These objections are surely not benefitted by an either/or mentality. It is not immediately clear that Matthew and Luke are operating with adoptionistic tendencies, and it is also uncertain that one can completely bifurcate the ‘coming into existence’ and the ‘incarnation’ as two separate claims. Certainly Brunner is inconsistent in affirming the second point of the eternal Son (a phrase that nowhere occurs in the New Testament) while downplaying the ‘historical’ nature of the Gospel accounts, as both present themselves as history. He is indebted to history and simply seems to prefer one type to the other.

Pannenberg and Brunner’s welcomed concerns also face two additional objections: first, these accounts are chronologically post-Paul and Paul clearly affirmed the PE of the Son maybe 20 years before the completion of the Gospel of Mark. Thus, PE is an early theological concept and would rule out adoptionism as a major theological player in the arena.[8] Whether or not Paul’s theology is compatible with the VB remains to be argued. Second, the accounts are of a different genre, intentionally so, and are working with a wider pool of historical accumulation. To dismiss these as ‘legendary’ is to ignore too much of Church history and to downplay the important witness of Paul’s material. It may even be possible that Matthew and Luke were aware of Paul’s writings and had data that fills in the gaps. Thus we have sufficient reasons to affirm the general historicity of the Gospel accounts. Now, we turn to the Apostle Paul.

3. PAUL AND THE ‘FORM’ OF THE VB

As already mentioned, Lincoln proposes three Pauline texts and rejects them as simply affirming the humanity of Christ. Although this is certainly not untrue, it overstates a key point of contention. The contention is this: Gal. 4:4 and Phil. 2:7 are far closer to an affirmation of the VB than they first appear. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” Paul does not use the term for virgin, and uses the standard noun for a woman/wife (γυναικός). However, contextually, there is nothing to suggest that Paul did or did not have a VB in mind. Gal. 4:4 may include a nod to PE, as the phrase “fullness of time had come” indicates a prior interval before a birth where the Son existed.[9]

It is also worthy to note that Paul does not mention any of the sexual impropriety of the Son’s birth in any form, whereas the Gospel accounts may include various elements of such things. For example, the inclusion of various women such as Bathsheba (Matt. 1:6) may indicate some form of sexual indecency. Lincoln notes that early sources attempt to attribute ‘legitimate’ means of the Son’s birth, such as Mary committing adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera.[10] This is significant because illustrates the fact that Paul didn’t view Jesus’ birth as sexually licentious. Other forms of ancient Judaism held that sin was transmitted through women, as Sirach 25:24 suggests that sin came into the world through Eve. It reads: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.” 1 Esdras 4:27 suggests that men have become sexual slaves to women, or sinned because of women, thus implying (coarsely) that it was sinful women who were the downfall of men.[11] Some strands of Judaism held that sin entered the world through Eve (or women in general), and this may give us some perspective on women in Judaism around the time of Paul These concepts are curiously absent in Paul, who specifies that sin came into the world through Adam, not Eve.[12]

Rather, Paul’s conclusion of the Son’s birth is the affirmation of his full and sinless humanity; in this he can affirm that Jesus was one who did not know sin (2 Cor. 5:21). If Christ was without sin for his entire human life—as Paul and other New Testament writers maintain[13]—then it may be held that the Son was without sin and Paul did not envision Mary as being in sin within his conception. The sinlessness of the Son means that he was not affected by the sinfulness of the human race. This belief may be compounded in speculating about the nature of “taking”[14] enacted by the Son in Phil. 2:7, where he took the form of a slave by being born in human likeness. The fact that the Son was without sin in his entire earthly life and in his previous state in eternity may indicate that this was a state he willingly entered into, and the belief that he assumed non-sinful flesh, being born through a sinless woman. Either he was unaffected biologically by the transmission of sin, or Mary, being a virgin, did not pass this onto him. Therefore, the continuity between PE and VB seems to be assumed in Paul, even though he never explicitly mentions the latter or fulfills our systematic concerns. His coherence may aide us in a further perspective found in the Old Testament.

4. OLD TESTAMENT AND SACRIFICE

Paul states in Romans 3:25 that Christ was the ἱλαστήριον (variously translated ‘place of atonement’ or ‘mercy seat’) by his death. This is an explicit Old Testament echo referring to the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:17-22). For Paul the sinless nature of Christ is what is important. What makes this interesting is that a female animal could be offered as a sin offering in the Torah. Leviticus 4:27-35 specifies that a female animal may be offered as a guilt or sin offering, where “the priest shall make atonement on your behalf” (v31). The specificity of an unblemished female animal is remarkable, since this is a section dedicated not to rulers or kings but to lay people[15]—a social status that suits Mary perfectly. In order for atonement to be made, the Holy Spirit required a woman who had no blemish. This would include chastity. Without her being pure within that specific cultural context, one wonders to what extent God, who knows no sin, could produce the human and sinless Messiah. It seems that the Holy Spirit, in order to produce a human nature free from sin, needed a woman who knew no sin or blemish. Thus, there may be—and I stress the tentative nature of my proposal here—some Old Testament reasons to consider the non-blemished feminine emphasis in relation to the Virgin Mary as the one who bore the eternal Son of God. A person (or animal as “type”) without blemish is not a foreign concept in Paul’s Scriptures and his view of the atonement.

5. SYNTHESIS

While Paul’s writings nowhere explicitly state that he affirmed the VB, his broader theological and cultural context does seem coherent with a view of the ‘fittingness’ of the birth of the Son of God.[16] The Son was without sin his entire human life. The VB is a key and clear bridge between the eternal Son and Jesus the Messiah. This may be confirmed for two reasons: first, his sinlessness from PE to his assumption of humanity requires a perfect gateway in order to maintain his sinlessness in order for atonement. The VB fulfills this as it explicitly rules out sexual impurity and affirms Mary’s high standing as Θεοτόκος. The Son was sent in the likeness of “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), though he was not himself sinful.[17] The ontological nature of the Creedal phrase “light from light, true God from true God” may be invoked in this way: we affirm that the sinless may beget the sinless, but the sinful cannot beget the sinless.

Second and finally, the VB seems to rule out adoptionism. Rom. 1:3-4, while a difficult Christological text, seems to emphasize the kingship of Jesus by the reference to the “seed” (σπέρματος) of King David and Christ’s human nature. The mention of King David is meant to affirm Christ’s role in salvation history as King and Messiah, not explain his ontological orientation. Rom. 5:14 speaks of Death[18] as King, and a possibly Pauline extrapolation is on the theme of kingship, the Human One coming to destroy the destroyer of life. Joshua Jipp of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School points out that several church fathers, including Athanasius, used Romans 1:3-4 to affirm Christ’s true humanity.[19] If Jipp and the Fathers are correct, then the VB is certainly coordinate with Rom. 1:3-4. Adoptionism is thus ruled out because Mary’s relationship to King David’s genealogy emphasizes Jesus’ birth of a specific line of Kings, not that God adopted the eternal Son. Thus, the gospel accounts are consistent with Paul. Coupled with this, the VB is consistent with the sacrifice of atonement and with the humanness of Christ expressed in Romans 1, as flesh without blemish is required under the Old Testament sacrificial system.

Because of the VB we can lay claim to the miraculous nature of Son’s incarnation, as it affirms a main Pauline theme of Christ’s sinlessness. A miraculous birth demands our attention and is no more a scandal than the idea of a PE person becoming flesh, or that the immortal would dare to become mortal, to dwell among us. The VB presents us with a truly unique historical event that defies easy categories.

5. CONCLUSION

I have attempted to bring together two variegated threads in Pauline theology, as well as several wider Pauline and Old Testament themes. The sinlessness of Christ is upheld as a central pillar in Paul’s thought, and when coupled with the nature of a spotless atonement yields some surprising fruit. The VB is, I argued, is necessary to maintain Pauline coherence and does no damage to Christian theology. We have seen that the dismissal of the Pauline witness as regards the doctrine of the VB is unwarranted, and that when one brings the threads together a beautiful tapestry begins to form. It is because of Paul’s witness that we can confess:

“I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again.”

Amen.

[1] Andrew T. Lincoln, Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2013), 22.
[2] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1977), 143.
[3] Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, New York: Paulist Press, 1973), 45.
[4] Pannenberg, 143.
[5] Lincoln, 21.
[6] Pannenberg, 149.
[7] Quoted in Pannenberg 149 n.84.
[8] One cannot be both the eternal divine Son and yet adopted. The two seem contradictory.
[9] Gordon D. Fee concurs and believes PE is assumed here. Pauline Christology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 211-220.
[10] Lincoln, 153-154. However, given the polemical nature of many critics of Christianity, it is likely that such criticism itself has a biased edge.
[11] As remarkably sexist as some of this material is, we find none of this in Paul’s letters—a remarkable reversal is even found in 1 Cor. 11:11-12.
[12] Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-28.
[13] The author of Hebrews asserts that Jesus was like us in every way—except as regards sin. Heb. 4:15.
[14] Λαβών (taking) is an active participle. This shows the self-actualization of the preexistent Son who took a form he previously did not have—namely, flesh.
[15] Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus (Downers Groves, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 97-99.
[16] C.f. Oliver D. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2009), 77-102.
[17] It may also be noted that other New Testament writers speak of Christ as sinless: Heb. 4:15.
[18] “[The] Death reigned…” (ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος), with the definite article seems to suggest Death’s kingship over humanity. Christ, as King and Messiah, gives us the gift of righteousness, which now reigns “in life” through Him.
[19] Joshua W. Jipp, “Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations of Romans 1:3-4: Reception History and Biblical Interpretation.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009): 252.

Paul on Slavery (Part V)

PAUL: The Pastorals

Titus 2:9-10

The author (questions of authorship aside) begins this section by telling Titus to “teach what is consistent with sound [healthy] doctrine”(2:1). He goes with gender (2:3-5),[1] younger men (2:6-8),[2] and then to slaves.[3] The slaves are told not to give satisfaction by “not talking back and “pilfering.”[4] Tellingly, the institution of slavery isn’t rooted in creation or a divine ordinance. Instead, they are to be ‘attractive’ (κοσμῶσιν, adornment, ornate) to their masters for the doctrine of God our Savior.

The follow up shows an impartial salvation that has appeared to all,[5] training them to renounce the world and live in ways that please God (v11-14). No one is to look down on us (v15).

1 Timothy 1:10

In this vice list (which begins in v9 and ends in v11), the author implicates many people as a result of their actions. This is in conjunction with the 10 Commandments. The ‘murderers’ (6th Commandment), ‘adulterers and sodomites’ (7th Commandment), and ‘slave traders’ (8th Commandment).[6] Paul lists these as “contrary to sound doctrine” (v10). What is curious in this brief analysis is that Paul has in mind Exodus 21:16, for which the penalty for “anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him…”[7] is death. This is coordinate with Paul’s Jewish unease with slavery, and indicates that he does consider some form of ‘slave-dealing’ as contrary to healthy doctrine.[8] Paul most probably still has false teachers in mind with this list.[9] While not entirely conclusive, this brief indictment shows that Paul viewed the trading of human beings as incompatible to “sound doctrine.”

1 Timothy 6:1-2

Why are slaves who are under the “yoke of slavery”[10] their masters[11] regard them as “worthy of all honor?” Simply stated, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.[12] While it is difficult to swallow this admonition, it is still important to realize that Paul is concerned with the church’s standing in society[13] (1 Tim 2:2 3:7). That is, if those in Christ haul off their yokes, this would be seen as a rebellion within the Greco-Roman context.[14]

Instead of a rebellion, Christian slaves are told to serve their Christian masters “all the more.”[15] Paul’s side comment[16] about all being “members of the church” implies a desire for unity within the community.

SUMMATION: Paul & Slavery

Paul - and his predecessors - in some sense significantly undermined the institution of slavery during his time. His influence upon subsequent traditions, who ransomed slaves, cannot be ignored. The terrible tragedy is that people would misuse Paul to shame the honor and dignity of African-Americans, especially in the name of God. While Paul can certainly be misused, we must remember that for his time, Paul was doing his best with an old world. While it is not enough for some of us, I do think it meant the world to people like Onesimus.

NQ

[1] This “submission” is not grounded in creation, respect or the husband’s authority. Rather, they are told to submit so that “the word of God may not be discredited.” This pattern of not bringing dishonor to God is a repeated emphasis throughout 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.
[2] Again, the reason is that an opponent “will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us” (v8).
[3] As with 1 Timothy 1:10, masters are given no exhortation.
[4] Gordon D. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 190, notes that “slaves were often entrusted with buying goods and also often had a degree of private ownership.” This shows that if slaves had a degree of freedom that they were not to use it against their owners. Or, even, if they had no freedom, to still not steal.
[5] Notably, women and slaves are included in this.
[6] Fee, 46.
[7] “ἀνδραποδισταῖς”; see BDAG 76, LSJ 127-8. Philip Payne pointed this in out. Man and Woman, One in Christ, 274. Gordon Fee points out that many early rabbis considered the 8th Commandment to be opposing slave dealing. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 49 additional notes 1:9-10.
[8] Much could be be said about the ἀρσενοκοίταις but that will have to wait.
[9] The notation of sexual improprieties and murderers could be a hint towards the activities of the various cults in the area. It is very likely that prostitutes and priests were close in the temples. While this does not excuse homosexual practice, it does show that Paul has such things in mind as a reason to indict them.
[10] Galatians 5:1.
[11] This would be Christian slaves and Christian owners, though the owner may not be a Christian. Christian slaves would likely be told to submit to their masters, regardless of religious affiliation.
[12] Fee suggests that slaves are still viewed as still “in the old social order.” 137.
[13] Indeed, that may be a key hermeneutical device to understand these household codes, especially in regards to slavery. Perhaps these are viewed as ad hoc. A key argument against this is that Paul is already an ad hoc theologian. While certainly true, an ad hoc admonition can still be applicable to a relevant modern situation.
[14] If history is any indication, the failed slave rebellion of Spartacus shows that a slave uprising would be crushed, and anyone who associated with it would likely suffer the same fate.
[15] Most probably, the masters here are Christians. The shift to the specific would indicate this, especially if masters in v1 are said to be “worthy of honor” so that God may not be blasphemed. If a Christian slave was disobedient or acting in a dishonorable way, it would follow that such slave masters would not view their religion in the highest opinion.
[16] Fee, 138, calls 6:2a an “ad hoc reason for this short section.”

If Paul Didn't Write Ephesians, What Then?

This is an excerpt from my notes on episode 5.If you are interested, click here to listen.

So a few people might be wondering about why I’m not bothered, or why we should or should not be bothered by this question of authorship. I suppose for me, I’ve more or less accepted a critical mindset once I graduated from Biola (though I don’t think Biola would want to take credit for this criticism) and began to read material about the New Testament in greater depth.

In doing this, I told myself over and over that the truth is what the truth is, regardless of how I felt about the matter. So that is, in small part, why this doesn’t bother me.

It also may be the case that the Holy Spirit saw fit to include Ephesians in the canon of Holy Scripture. The same reason that the Holy Spirit had no issue with there being at least two (or three) Isaiah’s in Holy Scripture.

A text can be timeless regardless of who wrote it. It speaks from history to our history and communicates truth that God wants taken to heart.

So Ephesians is a bit of an enigma and we’ll explore this a little bit more in the next episode. Until then, thanks for listening and blessings. For my money, if it turns out Paul did not write Ephesians (and I’m leaning that way at the moment), it would matter very little in relation to interpretive authority. It would cause issue only if one were doing strictly Pauline theology, but as far as its use in general theology, it is fair game and has been damn near essential in formulating Christian doctrine since …

Well since the early times.

That means something.

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

Should Evangelicals Assume Inerrancy when Doing Theology?

I confess to being on the fence regarding the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. But now, let me be clear: this is not because I am at Fuller Theological Seminary, or that I’m an Egalitarian, or because of any other doctrinal commitments. No other doctrine has prompted me to reconsider the doctrine of inerrancy. In fact, I have very little interest in affirming or denying the doctrine. For many people (bless you all), this is reason enough to shut down this tab and move on; more power to you.

For the others who did not shut down the tab, I pose the question: should evangelicals assume inerrancy when doing theology? This isn’t a sustained case for or against the doctrine of inerrancy, just some musings and personal reflections.

I should get some things out on the table: I am uncertain that Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy and Titus and Ephesians. I also think it is more likely that there are at least two parts to Isaiah. In reading about these textual and theological difficulties, I have not once considered the implications for my thoughts on inerrancy.

In doing theology, inerrancy has not mattered in any substantive way. In fact, I wonder if one could affirm a doctrine of inerrancy and affirm non-Pauline authorship of certain epistles. I tend to think the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. But this is an aside, much like this post as a whole. So moving on.

Inerrancy, then, has not factored in my theology or research. Should it? I offer these two thoughts in response:

No. Because I’m not convinced one should be considering secondary issues when doing research. The research should yield fruit, not uproot a tree in search of ghosts.

No. Because the diversity of Scripture should not cause evangelicals (like myself) to rush to systematize. We should first let the options and viewpoints stand.

So I think my perspective has been to simply let Scripture stand and say what She needs to say, regardless of my thoughts on other doctrines, authors or matters. Paul is not John, John is not Paul. Do they line up? Should they?

Then one gets into the discussion about what constitutes an actual error or contradiction. A conversation that seems as helpful a discussion as a car made out of biscuits. Rather, one should assign immediate authority to the author or text that one is researching before bringing in other authors or texts to supplement or, even, correct. Or should they?

I suppose these thoughts are too scattered to be of much help. I’m still working through them myself and this post is is coming in between my Greek homework and casual exegesis. Still, in not having a doctrine looming over my shoulder, I’ve been able to simply take the text as what it appears to say and let it stand in the middle of the room, like the great, authoritative elephant that Scripture is.

Then again, do we conflate authority with inerrancy? Not going to open that can, but the thought did just cross my mind. In doing New Testament exegesis, one should simply be content to read Paul (or Deutero-Paul, if he/they exist) without pondering doctrine.

This raises a whole other question: can one actually do non-dogmatic exegesis? In a strong sense, exegesis is theological. But I suppose that is a question that must wait until I have time to think about it some more.

Suffice to say, Scripture has and will always have authority over my life. Not only because I submit to it, but because it has shown that it doesn’t quite care what I think. The reciprocity of Scripture is just that, a God offering us words written through his creation for his creation.

Would He have it any other way?

I apologize for not answering the question. Or did I? Too tired to scroll up.

Blessings,

NQ

John Locke & Eternal Punishment

Locke made it known that many considered the doctrine of eternal torment to be of “little consistent with the justice or goodness of the great and infinite God…thereby doing violence to the whole tenour of the New Testament.”[1] Far from post-modernism and the emergent movement, Locke nevertheless considered such the doctrine of eternal torment to be inconsistent with justice and goodness of God. This should not be dismissed as sentimentalism, but rather an acute awareness of the world around him and possibly reflects the heart of a man who had the potential for being a powerful preacher. One wonders to what extent his influence would’ve increased or decreased had he chosen to pursue the clergy. Locke says, “this [mortality] is so clear in these cited places, and so much the current of the New Testament, that nobody can deny, but that the doctrine of the gospel is, that death came on all men by Adam’s sin; only they differ about the signification of the word death: for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherein not only [Adam], but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserves endless torment, in hell-fire.”[2] The debate about ‘death’ and ‘immortality’ has apparently been raging since Locke’s day, and modern annihilationists may rest in comfort that we may indeed continue to be misunderstood as Locke was.[3]

Locke continues, “I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could anyone be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die,” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?”[4] While one may simply and silently concur with such an acute observation, there are arguments made against Locke and he takes it upon himself to clarify his remarks. 

The rejoinder deserves to be quoted in full: 

“To this, they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning, and provoking God in every action that men do: a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says, that “in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die;” i. e. thou and thy posterity shall be, ever after, incapable of doing any thing, but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as a punishment of one sin, wherewith he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. The reason of this strange interpretation, we shall perhaps find, in some mistaken places of the New Testament. I must confess, by death here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came on Adam, and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in paradise; under which death they should have lain for ever, had it not been for the redemption by Jesus Christ. If by death, threatened to Adam, were meant the corruption of human nature in his posterity, ’tis strange, that the New Testament should not any-where take notice of it, and tell us, that corruption seized on all, because of Adam’s transgression, as well as it tells us so of death. But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only.”[5]  

Locke even takes up the challenge of the issue of the unevangelized, offering several thoughts. One being the promise of God to Israel, to persuade people to embrace what was revealed to them.[6] The more interesting is that Locke didn’t believe that all men had to have perfect doctrine, suggesting, “I desire those who tell us, that God will not (nay, some go so far as to say, cannot) accept any, who do not believe every article of their particular creeds and systems, to consider, why God, out of his infinite mercy, cannot as well justify men now, for believing Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, the King and Deliverer.”[7] While he was not a systematic theologian[8], he was acutely aware that each idea was built upon each other. To remove one isn’t to devolve the other argument; each argument is independent, but yet related to the other argument. Therefore, Locke’s views were reciprocal with each other, never exclusive. Immortality and resurrection are married, and this appears in the shadow of the eschatological cross.

NQ

---

[1] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 8.

[2] Ibid, 9

[3] Modern Annihilationists may also take comfort in the knowledge that with an advocate as articulate as Locke, he was surely not alone in expressing his views.

[4] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 9.

[5] Ibid, 9.

[6] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 81. Locke appears to embrace a view of ‘limited’ knowledge for those who haven’t heard. To believe in a little, or what has been revealed to them, is enough for God. God doesn’t expect more than what he has given.

[7] Ibid,  81.

[8] Similarly, some scholars and theologians have claimed that Paul wasn’t a systematic theologian either. C.f. E.P. Sanders, Paul. This does not diminish the brilliance of Paul and John Locke; it merely showcases that perhaps they were closer aligned than many have assumed.

John Locke on Body, Soul and Conditional Immortality

In a rather scintillating comment, Locke explains his dislike of the philosophies that had impugned Christianity. For instance, he writes “in the ages wherein Platonism prevailed, the converts to Christianity of that school, on all occasions, interpreted holy writ according to the notions they had imbibed from that philosophy.”[1] What is surprising about this is that many theologians during this time accepted the belief in body soul dualism, though this would not go unchallenged from all sides. Though dualism is prevalent in evangelical circles–not to mention some secular[2]–to this day, various modern biblical scholars and philosophers are rejecting dualism.[3] Where Locke agrees with modern day scholars is that “those who are possessed with the doctrine of aerial and aethereal vehicles [or what we would call the soul], have thence borrowed an interpretation of the first four verses of 2 Cor. V without having done any ground to think that St. Paul had the least notion of any such vehicle.”[4] Frankly, for Locke, he wants to know what Paul thought, not what people put in Paul’s mind and mouth. This will be revealed in his notes regarding what he believes St. Paul intended.

2 Corinthians 5:1-10. This text is often considered the vanguard of dualism in Scripture. Locke notes, with some giddiness, the Jewish background of Paul by proclaiming in a footnote on 4:17: “What an influence St. Paul’s Hebrew had, upon his Greek, is everywhere visible: [the word] in Hebrew, signifies “to be heavy,” and “to be glorious;” St. Paul, in the Greek, joins them, and says, “the weight of glory.”[5] What this indicates is that Locke knew of Paul’s Jewish background, and this is a clever notation, designed to showcase continuity between the Old and New Testament. While there are many additional factors that modern scholars argue about within this passage[6], Locke instead pushes, first, the necessity of the approaching of Christ’s parousia. Locke notes, “the apostle looked on the coming of Christ, as not far off, appears, by what he says, 1 Thess. 4:13.”[7] The resurrection has resulted in a ticking clock. Thus, while Locke doesn’t use the phrase ‘now and not-yet’ he certainly is of a similar state of mind in reading Paul’s words. Second, the emphasis on the pain and groaning of the body (v2, 4) reveals the physicality of the present body and “by putting off this mortal, earthly body”[8] can Locke then get to his third point. Third, “we are not, therefore, willing to be put off, but had rather, with out dying, have it changed.”[9] Locke’s explanation of ‘changed’ includes changing “into a celestial, immortal body”[10] but also is noteworthy that he believes that only those “who have the Spirit of Christ” shall be raised with this ‘celestial, immortal body.’ He builds off 1 Corinthians 15, but states what he believes the ‘nakedness’ of v3 to be: “the state of the dead, unclothed with immortal bodies, until the resurrection.”[11] The acknowledgment of judgment at the end of days showcases the eschatological and the ‘now and not-yet’ of Locke’s thoughts on this passage. For Locke, it is difficult to speak of human anthropology without discussing immortality and death. Thus, for the sake of space, I will condense immortality and death into the same discussion, as Locke seems to link them together in such a way anyway. 

Here, we examine his thoughts on the rest of Scripture.

From the beginning, Locke stresses that “what Adam fell from…was the state of perfect obedience…and by this fall he lost paradise, wherein was tranquility and the tree of life; i.e. he lost bliss and immortality.”[12] For Locke, everything begins with Adam’s fall, and Adam’s being “shut out forever from [the tree of life], lest he should take thereof, and life forever.”30 Paradise is coupled with immortality, “of life without end.”[13] This is remarkably similar to the modern lexical definition of “immortality”[14] and reflects Locke’s training in Greek. “[Adam’s] life began from thence to shorten, and waste, and to have an end; and from thence to his actual death, was but like the time of a prisoner, between the sentence passed, and the execution, which was in view and certain.”[15] From this fall from immortality, Locke confirms the nature of immortality, as it lacked “drudgery, and [was] without sorrow.”[16] Because of Adam’s sin, “all his posterity born out of it, the consequence of it was, that all men should die, and remain under death forever, and so be utterly lost.”[17] There is no natural immortality given to human beings; we share the fate of Adam, namely death. Locke further paraphrases that God is “incomprehensible, majestic, eternal and incorruptible”[18] as opposed to man preferring to worship “the images of corruptible men, birds, beasts, and insects.”[19] Locke further mentions that because of this, death entered the world, alluding to two key texts: Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, stating, “By reason of [Adam’s] transgression, all men are mortal, and come to die.”[20] Locke did not concede the argument that exclusion entailed a conscious, miserable existence away from God. By no means; instead he argued the opposite, “the wages of sin should be to every man, as it was to Adam, an exclusion of him out to that happy state of immortality, and bring death upon him.”[21] Exclusion entails the loss of immortality, followed by the natural conclusion of death. 

Appealing to James 1:15[22], Romans 5:12[23] and 6:23[24], Locke argued strongly “no righteous person, no one that is guilty of any breach of the law, should be in paradise.”[25] Within the context of the pursuit of “eternal life” in Romans 2:7, he unpacks the logic of Paul’s verse of what God will give to the righteous: “eternal life to all those who by patience and gentleness in well-doing seek glory and honour, and a state of immortality.”[26] All others who forsake such righteousness will be met with retribution. The principle idea in Romans 5:12-19 is “that by Adam’s lapse all men were brought into a state of death, and by Christ’s death all are restored to life. By Christ, also, as many as believe are instated in eternal life.”[27] For this reason, Adam “forfeited immortality, and became thereby mortal.”[28] For Locke, “having sinned” entails the fall into mortality.47 The resurrection of Christ reverses mortality, bringing mankind back to the original source of life: communion with God and each other.[29] Immortality is never said to be given to all men, just to the saints of God.[30] Locke concludes, “immortality and bliss, belong to the righteous; those who have lived in an exact conformity to the law of God, are out of the reach of death; but an exclusion from paradise and loss of immortality is the portion of sinners.”[31] Adam was created immortal, and this entailed that he was in the image of God; “but Adam, transgressing the command given to him by his heavenly Father, incurred the penalty; forfeited that state of immortality, and became mortal.” Simply, Adam was immortal before the action of sin, and this immortality, which included right relationship with the God of the living, was removed. “After this, Adam begot children” but they were “in his own likeness, after his own image,” mortal, like their father.”[32] Thus, those born from the Adamic line are begotten with mortality and cannot naturally live forever. Indeed, that is the curse; that death is the true result of sin. 

Explicitly in his paraphrase of Romans 6:21-23, Locke couldn’t be more forthright with what he believed St. Paul was teaching: “For the end of those things is death, which are done in obedience to sin, is death. But now, being set free from sin, being no longer vassals to that master, but having God now for your lord and master, to whom you are become subjects or vassals, your course of life tends to holiness, and will end in everlasting life. For the wages[33] that sin pays, is death: but that which God’s servants receive, from his bounty, is the gift of eternal life[34], through Jesus Christ our Lord.”[35] Death has a straightforward meaning: to die is to not live. It is to be subject to the natural outworking of life. In this sense, Locke affirmed very strongly universal mortality and the reward of sin as ‘death.’ In some sense, the quotation from Braveheart rings true: “Every man dies, not every man really lives.”

In his finest paraphrase of Paul’s epistles, John Locke presents the magnum opus of the resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15.[36] He concurs with Paul that the fundamental principle is that “In truth, Christ is actually risen from the dead, and become the first fruits[37] of those who were dead. For, since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, or restoration to life.”[38] The logic for Locke is two-fold: the return of Christ, who has risen; the resurrection of “those, who are his people, his church, and this shall be at his second coming.”[39] According to Locke, Christ “must reign, till he has totally subdued and brought all his enemies into subjection to his kingdom. The last enemy that shall be destroyed, is death.”[40] The emphasis Locke puts on the resurrection is not surprising, given Paul’s passion and Locke’s exegesis: for John, “when death comes, as it shortly will, there is an end for us forever.”[41] Death is the utter end of life, the cessation of personality and existence. By no means is this the end for Christians. Indeed, it is the greatest hope a mortal can have. Locke argues strongly that the resurrection of the dead includes only those in Christ.[42] Indeed, Locke appears skeptical that Paul thought there would even be a resurrection of the lost[43], a doubt I share as well. Immortality is thus within the framework of God’s act in restoring creation. Like Satan falling like lightning, death is banished forever from all of God’s creation. 

NQ

---

[1] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, xx.

[2] A recent example can be found in that 64% of U.S. adults believe in the survival of the soul after death.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/poll-americans-belief-god-strong-declining

[3] This is just a sampling: Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life. E. Earle Ellis, Christ and The Future of the Christian Church, 179-197. Nancey Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? Oscar Cullmann, The Immortality of the Soul or the Resurrection of the Body? Peter van Inwagen and his essay “Dualism and Materialism: Athens and Jerusalem.”

[4] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, xx.

[5] Ibid, 228 n.17.

[6] Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life, 170-172; 175-177. He states, “…Paul’s language is indeed dualistic but not in an anthropological sense. He thinks of an eschatological dualism, contrasting the now

and the not-yet.” 176.

[7] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 228 n. 3. Locke also points to several other passages:

1 Cor. 1:7; 7:29, 31; 10:11; Rom. 13:11, 12.

[8] Ibid, 228.

[9] Ibid, 229.

[10] Ibid, 229.

[11] Ibid, 229 n. 4.

[12] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 8.

[13] Ibid, 8.

[14] BDAG 155. “Aphtharsia” refers to the state of not being subject to decay,/dissolution/interruption,

incorruptibility, immortality. This word appears several times in 1 Cor. 15. V42, 50, 53.

[15] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 8.

[16] Ibid, 9.

[17] Ibid, 10.

[18] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 235-6.

[19] Ibid, 235.

[20] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 8.

[21] Ibid, 11.

[22] Ibid, 11. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” Locke continues with “as it were, by a natural and necessary production. Many modern annihilationists have appealed to this same text, arguing for a non-specialized non-spiritual meaning of ‘death.’ Simply put, Locke appears to concur, suggesting that death is a natural outcome of sin. C.f. Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes 3^rd Edition, 219-221.

[23] Ibid, 11: “Sin entered into the world, and death by sin.”

[24] Ibid, 11: “The wages of sin is death.”

[25] Ibid, 11.

[26] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 221.

[27] Ibid, 321.

[28] Ibid, 322.

[29] Locke translates “justification and life” in Rom 5:17 as “justification to life.” A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 327.

[30] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 328: “For eternal life is nowhere, in sacred scripture, mentioned, as the portion of all men, but only of the saints.”

[31] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 11.

[32] Ibid, 66.

[33] Locke’s footnote, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 340, n23: “The wages of sin,” does not signify here the wages, that are paid for sinning, but the wages, that sin pays.” Locke notes the contrast between ‘wages of sin’ and the ‘gift of God’ as eternal life.

[34] Locke’s footnote, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 340, n23: “Sin pays death to those, who are its obedient vassals: but God rewards the obedience of those, to whom he is lord and master, by the gift of eternal life. Their utmost endeavours and highest performances can never entitle them to it of right; and so it is to them not wages, but a free gift.”

[35] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 340.

[36] The amount of sheer space that Locke gives to 1 Corinthians 15 merits its own independent treatment, and I regret not being able to do justice to it’s totality. The footnotes are also extensive, taking up whole pages, and his paraphrase is deep and compelling.

[37] Locke’s footnote, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 187: “The first fruits were a small part, which was first taken and offered to God, and sanctified the whole mass, which was to follow.”

[38] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 187.

[39] Ibid, 187.

[40] Ibid, 187-188.

[41] Ibid, 189.

[42] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 191. First, what is raised (v43) is resurrected in glory, and the wicked aren’t raised in glory. Second, “we” means those who “bear the image of the heavenly Adam.” Third, the dead “in Christ” includes only Christians, as pointed out in 1 Thess. 4:16-17. Fourth, the victory of God over death includes the removal of all wicked from creation.

[43] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, 191 “So that from the 23rd  verse, to the end of the chapter, all that [Paul] says of the resurrection, is a description only of the resurrection of the just, though he calls it here, by the general name of the resurrection of the dead.” Every verse, according to Locke, from v41 onwards, proclaims this.