Singing In The Reign

Messiah Tablet Confirms Published Dissertation

2008-07-10T13:36:00.000-07:00

The Catholic News Agency ran a story on the Tablet which I posted on below. The author interviewed one of the brightest up-and-coming Catholic Biblical scholars around, Tim Gray.

"Dr. Timothy Gray, a professor of Biblical Studies at the Augustine Institute in Denver, told CNA that the news of the tablet was “very fascinating,” saying “everything seems to point to its authenticity.”
He said the text seems to draw heavily upon the Book of Daniel. Scholars know from the work of Josephus that many Jews immediately before and during the time of Jesus focused on the Book of Daniel because of his prophecies related to a messiah coming to usher in a Kingdom of God.
“A focal point of Jesus’ teaching was the kingdom of God, and Jesus makes many allusions to Daniel. That really seems to cohere with this view of Jesus.”
Gray said that Jewish expectation of a dying messiah is shown in Daniel’s prophecies, noting that Daniel chapter 9 talks about how an anointed messiah will be cut off and killed.
According to Gray, a standard view of modern biblical scholarship holds that the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels where He predicts His Passion and His death cannot be authentic because, scholars believe, most Jews had no expectation of a suffering messiah. Such scholars attributed these words of Jesus to later additions made by the early Church.
Knohl’s minority contention that there were Jewish ideas of a suffering messiah before Jesus, Gray said, is echoed in the work of Catholic biblical scholar Brant Pitre."

Here's the rest.

Gray is absolutely correct--this tablet confirms what my good friend and co-blogger, Brant Pitre, argued in his masterful dissertation, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

But, as much as I love Tim Gray, I've got to quibble a little with what he said. Knohl's work is not echoed in Pitre's work--Pitre was arguing that Jews believed the messiah would suffer long before this tablet was known to the academy. In fact, the evidence is so strong, he doesn't even need to cite this Tablet to make his case.

Where does he get all of this evidence? Is it from some obscure source? Well, as Gray mentioned, first and foremost, is the biblical book of Daniel, which, in chapter 9, states:

“Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. His [or "its"] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Here's what Pitre says:

"Despite the difficulties of interpretation surrounding this admittedly dense text, it is clearly a description of a final period of tribulation that is characterized by at last three important elements. First, the text explicitly asserts that during the last days before the "end" (קץ) an "anointed one" or "messiah" (משׁיח) shall rise up during this troubled time and be killed or "cut off" (כרת) (Dan 9:26). [Whether the text refers to one or two messiahs is irrelevant for our purposes; if there are two envisioned (something I doubt), at least one of them - the latter - comes before the end and is killed.] Thus, at least for Daniel, the eschatological tribulation is quite explicitly messianic: i.e., it is a period during which the Messiah - a royal eschatological figure, a "prince" (נגיד) - will come and be killed." (Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of the Exile, 56-7).

Many other passages could be referenced here--that's part of the reason Brant's book is over 550 pages.

So what are you waiting for--go buy it.

New Inscription Found: "Messiah to be Raised After 3 Days"?!

2008-07-05T18:58:00.000-07:00

From tomorrow's New York Times:

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

Read the rest.

I've known about this for sometime, but it looks like it now is finally hitting the mainstream media.

For the record, it should be pointed out that the idea of a resurrection on the third day flows from Hosea 6:2: "After two days he will revive us;on the third day he will raise us up,that we may live before him."

Indeed, Jesus explains to the disciples that his resurrection on the third day would take place in order to fulfill Scripture.

"Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead" (Luke 24:46).

In fact, the New Testament is clear that Jesus came to fulfill the hopes of ancient Israel.

Yet, the New York Times story seems to suggest that this tablet will somehow raise questions about the truth of Christianity. Somehow, for them, the discovery that some ancient Jews expected the messiah to suffer and rise on the third day is problematic for Christianity.

I really don't see why. Indeed, scholars generally agree that finding parallels in Judaism to Jesus' teachings tends to strengthen the probability of historicity. If this inscription says what the article claims this would seem to strengthen--not weaken--the historicity of the Gospels' story about Jesus.

In fact, I actually find this hugely ironic. For some have made the opposite claim--namely, that the lack of evidence that Jews expected the messiah to suffer and rise from the dead calls into question the historical authenticity of Jesus' prediction of his passion and resurrection.

I guess this just goes to show that no matter what the evidence is some scholars will find a way to conclude that Christianity isn't true.

Photo: Dominic Buettner, New York Times

Name the Author: "Historical Criticism Like the Devil"

2008-07-05T13:54:00.000-07:00

It's time for another edition of the "Name That Author Contest"!

This one's for double points.

Who said the following?

"Give the historical method an inch and it will take a mile. From a strictly orthodox standpoint, therefore, it seems to bear a certain similarity to the devil."

Now come on everyone--take your best shot. The clock is ticking...

Joseph Klausner and the Neglect of Jewish Scholarship

2008-07-05T11:48:00.000-07:00

Up until only recently the work of Jewish scholars has been largely ignored by those doing historical Jesus research. One such scholar whose work, though lacking some of the critical precision expected today, is still immensely insightful is Joseph Klausner. In particular I've been reading his work of Jesus of Nazareth (repr., Boston: Beacon, 1964 [1925]).

One of the great things about this work is survey of the history of Jewish scholarship. It is worth noting the number of Jewish scholars mentioned who have been largely ignored. In particular, I was struck by the way Klausner discusses the way Albert Schweitzer’s seminal survey of the history of Jesus research pays hardly any notice to the work of Joseph Salvador, Jésus Christ et sa doctrine: histoire de la naissance de l’église, de son organisation et de ses progrès pendant le premier siecle (2 vols., Paris: A. Guyot et Scribe, 1838; 2nd ed., Paris: M. Lévy Frères, 1864–65).

The neglect cannot simply be chalked up to the fact that the work was originally written in French--as Klausner suggests--since Salvador’s work had been translated into German by the time of Schweitzer’s writing [cf. Das Leben Jesu und sein Lehre: die Geschichte der Entstehung der christichen Kirche, ihrer Organisation und Fortschritte während des ersten Jahhunderts (Dresden: Walther’s Buchhandlung, 1841)].

Strikingly, not only is Salvador’s work badly mischaracterized and mentioned only in passing, appearing under the section, "Further Imaginative Lives of Jesus," but Schweitzer even misspells his name (“Salvator”)! See Schweitzer's, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, 162.

By the way, a great antidote to this kind of neglect is Donald A. Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus: An Analysis and Critique of Modern Jewish Study of Jesus (with a foreword by G. Lindeskog; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).

Milgrom vs. Gane: What Did the Old Testament Sacrifices Do?

2008-06-30T13:34:00.000-07:00

A seriuous contribution to the study of the Old Testament sacrificial cult has just been made. Let me explain.

Anyone doing work in Leviticus these days know that there is a major debate regarding the theological rationale behind the rituals of atonement, particular those of Yom Kippur and the hatta’t (the “sin-offering”).

In particular, Jacob Milgrom has argued that, contrary to what many have thought of such atonement rituals, their primary focus is not purging the individual of impurity, but the maintenance of the ritual purity of the sanctuary. In his magisterial commentary on Leviticus he writes:
“Whom or what does the [hattā’t] purge? Herein lies the first surprise: it is not the offerer of the sacrifice.”[1]

Thus Milgrom has argued that "sin-offering" is a misleading translation of the hatta’t, which he argues is best understood as a “purification offering.” Indeed, a survey of the recent secondary literature reveals his influence―most scholars now refer to the “purification-offering” rather than the “sin-offering.”

In essence, Milgrom wants to move us away from the idea that the offering cleanses the offerer himself--it is the sanctuary that is primarily in view. He compares the theology of Leviticus to the Portrait of Dorian Gray. The fundamental idea is that transgressions against the Lord are borne by the sanctuary. The sacrifices effectively purify the sanctuary from the resulting impurity incurred by Israel.

I've been closely following the debate about Milgrom's theory with great interest. It has especially important theological implications, which should be obvious (i.e., as an antecedent to Christian atonement theology). In fact, a number of scholars have argued that while Milgrom is right in showing that scholarship has generally neglected the purity concerns of the cult to assert the sacrifices do nothing for the individual overstates the case. For example, Steven Finlan sums up the view of many others well when he writes:

“Milgrom has correctly exposed a (former) scholarly neglect of purity concerns
in Leviticus, but he has tried to impose a new hegemony of meaning upon actions
that were really understood in a dual sense, as cleansing both the symbols (the
sancta) and the things symbolized (the priests and the people).”[2]

The fact is, however, most of those who have taken Milgrom on are Christians who clearly have theological reasons for opposing his view. Of course, that's not to say that an anti-Christian polemic may be at work in Milgrom's view. Nonetheless, most of the critiques of Milgrom's work come in the form of sections of works dealing with Christian atonement theology. An in-depth, comprehensive treatment of the Levitical law code has been sorely needed.

Enter Roy E. Gane, a student of Milgrom. Gane has offered what is clearly the most balanced and well-argued critique of Milgrom’s work in Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005). In fact, the back cover features a blurb from Milgrom himself:

“[Gane’s] book is a marvel of close reading and impeccable logic…. [It] is the first major critique of my work, and I am immensely happy and proud that it was done by my student and that my contribution is so comprehensively acknowledged…. It is a major work and will be the standard for a long time.”

Gane points out that, contrary to Milgrom’s view, the text indicates that the offerings are made for (the Hebrew is מן) the offerer―not simply the sanctuary. See for example Leviticus 4:26: “so the priest shall make atonement for him for (מן) his sin, and he shall be forgiven.”

In fact, Milgrom wrote a response to Gane’s work, “The preposition מן in the חטאת Pericopes,” in the Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007):161-63. There Milgrom offers a respectful response to Gane’s argument.

For example, Gane looks at the use of the preposition in Leviticus 15:15b, which describes the case of a person who has contracted ritual impurity because of a discharge: “the priest shall offer [two turtledoves or pigeons], one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord [מן = for, from, or on behalf of?] his discharge.” Here Gane argues that the preposition Nm should be translated as indicating that the priest is to effect purgation on behalf of (=for the benefit of) the offerer from his discharge―in other words, the sacrifice is meant to remove residual impurity from him.

But Milgrom believes this is “simply incomprehensible. Purgation (כפר) is not offered ‘from’ but ‘for, because of’― ‘his flow’ (15:15)…”[3] In other words, Milgrom believes the sanctuary is what has been defiled because of the person’s sin―the offering therefore is made to atone/purge it. Thus, the offering is made on behalf of the impurity caused by the discharge.

Today I received the latest edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature and..., lo and behold, the first article is written by Gane: “Privative Preposition מן in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of 'Dorian Gray.'"

Suffice it to say, I think Gane is absolutely right on. Gane strengthens his case and answers Milgrom’s response to his critique. In regard to Leviticus 15:15b he points out that Milgrom himself is inconsistent. Particularly instructive is his analysis of what Milgrom does with Leviticus 12:7. In this passage we read about the case of a woman who is ritually impure because she has just given birth. The passage reads: “[the priest] shall offer [the sin-offering] before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from [מן = for, from, on behalf of] the flow of her blood.” In this case Gane points out that Milgrom translates מן as “from”--in other words, he translates the preposition differently in this case. He writers,

“[W]hy does Milgrom render ‘from’ rather than the causative sense of Nm in 12:7, ‘from her source of blood,’ also referring to residual impurity in terms of its physical origin…? The fact is, only ‘from’ is comprehensible in 12:7, and a consistent rendering of ‘from’ elsewhere is only incomprehensible if one approaches the purification-offering goal formulas with an a priori assumption.”[4]

There’s much more, but I can’t discuss it all here. To sum it up though, Gane’s piece is so clear I believe it will represent the standard view. Milgrom has made a tremendous contribution by refocusing us on the purity concerns of the Old Testament cult, but he is wrong to deny that it is also related to the individual offerer. Gane is absolutely correct: the sacrifices effected something for the offerer―not merely the sanctuary.

I think Gane just closed the door on that debate in this article.

NOTES
[1] See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 254. In addition, see Jacob Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978): 501-523; idem., “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’” RB 83 (1976): 390-99.
[2] Stephen Finlan, The Background and Context of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 33.
[3] Milgrom, “The preposition,” 162.
[4] Gane, “Privative Preposition,” 220.

Hahn on Liturgy, Law and Church Authority

2008-06-29T12:50:00.001-07:00

Given that today is the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul I thought this clip appropriate. (Sorry, I don't have a video of his presentation on Romans 9-11!).

Today the lectionary readings include Jesus' exchange with Peter in Matthew 16. However, oftentimes, the discussion of Church's authority is reduced to law. Hahn's treatment is actually much more balanced--and frankly, much more consistent with authentic Catholic teaching.

Prepare to try to take a sip from a fire hydrant.

By the way, this is Part 1 of "Letter and Spirit - The Authority of the Church of Christ". You can find the rest of the discussion over there.

How "All" Israel Will Be Saved

2008-06-25T10:34:00.000-07:00

Chris Tilling has a post up on the meaning of "all" in Romans in which he shows that "all" does not always mean "all".

Of course, a key passage is Romans 11:25-26:

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, 26 and so all Israel [πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ] will be saved...

The key question here is whether Paul believed every single Israelite would be saved.

I do not have the time to write an extensive essay on this--I've got to get back to finishing my dissertation. In fact, Scott Hahn presented a paper at the International Meeting of SBL a few years ago which looks at this passage in great detail--and let me tell you, to fully treat this subject would take another dissertation! Nonetheless, I want to piggy-back off Tilling's post and say a few things about this passage.

The key here is identifying how "all Israel" [πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ] is used in the Old Testament and non-canonical Jewish literature. For that I recommend an excellent article by James M. Scott [“All Israel Will Be Saved,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish & Christian Perspectives (ed. J. M. Scott; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 489-526]. Scott shows that the phrase is typically used to describe all twelve tribes. In other words, the term is typically used to identify the inclusion of the northern tribes.

2 Samuel 2:8-10: Now Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, had taken Ish-bo'sheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahana'im; and he made him king over Gilead and the Ash'urites and Jezreel and E'phraim and Benjamin and all Israel. Ish-bo'sheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David”
2 Samuel 5:3, 5: So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel… At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years
2 Samuel 19:11: And King David sent this message to Zadok and Abi'athar the priests, "Say to the elders of Judah, 'Why should you be the last to bring the king back to his house, when the word of all Israel has come to the king?”
1 Chronicles 21:5: And Jo'ab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand who drew the sword.
1 Kings 4:7: Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided food for the king and his household; each man had to make provision for one month in the year.

In eschatological contexts, the term is especially focused on the restoration of the northern tribes with the southern house of Judah. Thus, "all Israel" means "all the tribes" of Israel--even the so-called "lost tribes". This is probably most clear in Testament of Benjamin 10:11:

4Q521 2 iii 1-5: and the law of your favor. And I will free them with [...] 2 its is su[re:] 'The fathers will return to the sons' (Mal 3:24). [...] 3 which the blessing of the Lord in his goodwill [...] 4 May the [ea]rth rejoice in all the pla[ces] 5 fo[r] all Israel in the rejoicing [...]. [NOTE: compare with Sir 48:10 where Mal 3:24 is used to describe the restoration of the tribes of Israel]
4Q164 1:1-8: [he will mak]e all Israel like eye-paint around the eye. 'And I will found you in sapphi[res' (Isa 54:11). Its interpretation:] 2 They will found the council of the community, [the] priests and the peo[ple...] 3 the assembly of their elect, like a sapphire stone in the midst of the stones. 'I will make] 4 all your battlements [of rubies]' (Isa 54:12). Its interpretation comes the twelve [chiefs of the the priests who] 5 illuminate with the judgments of the Urim and the Thummim [...without] 6 any from among them missing, like the sun in all its light. 'And a[ll your gates of glittering stones' (Isa 54:12).] 7 Its interpretation concerns the chiefs of the tribes of
Israel in the l[ast days... of] 8 its lost, their posts.
T. Ben. 10:11: Therefore, my children, if you live in holiness, in accord with the Lord's commands, you shall again dwell with me in hope; all Israel will be gathered to the Lord."

For a detailed survey see James Scott's article (especially 500-514).

The upshot of the analysis is that the term was related to Israel's tribal configuration. Scott states in his conclusion of the survey of Old Testament texts: "Although the term 'all Israel' can be used to denote a representative selection from the full complement of the tribes, it is never used to refer specifically to all individuals within the nation" (507).

Likewise, after looking at the texts from the Second Temple period, he concludes:

"The expression occurs most frequently in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and in the (sectarian) writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. "All Israel" is used less frequently with reference to historical Israel (cf. T. Jos. 20:5; Ps-Philo, Bib. Ant. 22:1; 23:1; CD 3, 14), unless the emphasis is on the continuity of Israel through the ages to the present and beyond. Otherwise, the term is used to stress either the (often idealized) present reality or the future hope. As in the OT usage, 'all Israel' does not denote each and every individual, but rather a collective whole or some subset of the whole. The expression normally preserves an element of the twelve-tribe system of ancient Israel, and thus can be understood as deliberate archaism or
restorationism when it is used of the post-Monarchic situation. This tendency is particularly clear in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" (515).

So now let's return to Romans 11:225-26. When Paul speaks about the salvation of "all Israel" what is he referring to?

It seems Paul is speaking of the pan-Israelite restoration hope. In fact, as Hahn pointed out in his SBL paper, a close look at Romans 9-11 reveals that, whereas up to now Paul has spoken about the "Jew" (Ἰουδαῖος), in these chapters there is a subtle shift in focus to "Israel". Moreover, Hahn showed many of Paul's Old Testament citations throughout this section are drawn from passages which speak of the northern tribes. For example, in Romans 9:25 Paul cites Hosea:
“'Those who were not my people
I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved
I will call ‘my beloved’ [cf. Hos 2:23].
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God’ [Hos. 1:10].”

These words are spoken to the northern tribes. In chapter 1 Hosea explains that in sending these tribes into exile God is punishing them for the infidelity--he will say, "You are not my people" (cf. Hos 1:10). This is clear if one reads the prophecy in context:

Hos 1:10-11: 10 Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Sons of the living God.” 11 And the people of Judah and the people of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head; and they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

The northern Israelites were sent into exile but they were not forgotten. Though they were dissolved into the nations through intermarriage God did not forget about them--he still knew where they were, much like God told Elijah he knew where the faithful remnant of his people was in his day (cf. Rom 11:2-6).

Paul thus sees his Gentile mission in terms of the pan-Israelite hope. The northern tribes must be restored to fulfill the promises made by the Lord through the prophets. Where are they? Among the Gentiles. To bring Israel home means to bring in the Gentiles. This is the mystery. God allowed Israel to be exiled so that he could use them to eventually bring the nations home as well--as their relatives.

Paul's opponents accuse him of rejecting his people. Paul doesn't see it that way. By neglecting the Gentiles--where the northern tribes were sent--his opponents are the ones who have rejected Israel.

Thus: "Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, 26 and so all Israel [πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ] will be saved..." (Rom 11:25-26).

For more see the treatment in Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Romans (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003).

***UPDATE***
In the com-box I got a great question from t.c. williams. Speaking of my conclusion, he writes,

"You have provide Scripture for all your other conclusion but not for this one. Why? This seems like quite a hermeneutical leap. Where in Paul are Gentiles understood as the lost Northern tribes?"

Thanks for the question. I'm sorry I added didn't make the conclusion more exegetical. I was just trying to save time by summing it up. Let me be a little more clear here.

First, go back again and look at the logic in Hosea. The Israelites are sent off into exile and become "not my people". But God will restore them again, and, on that day, they "will be called sons of the living God" (cf. Rom 9:26).

With that in mind, let's return to Paul. Let's look at Paul's logic in 9:22ff:

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Paul then applies the Hosea passage to those called from the Gentiles! Look at the next verse:

"As indeed he says in Hosea, 'Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'my beloved.' And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people', they will be called
'sons of the living God'" (cf. Romans 9:25-26; Hos 2:23; 1:10).

Is Paul wrenching this passage from Hosea out of context? Some think so. Some think Paul is randomly applying this passage which originally spoke of the northern tribes to the Gentiles in a kind of "replacement" theology. For example, see E. Elizabeth Johnson, The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9-11 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 150: “Paul appears to wrench Hos 2:25 and 2:1 from their historical contexts to apply them to Gentiles rather than to Israel..."

I think that misunderstands Paul. As Richard Hays and others have shown, to understand Paul one must see how the contexts of the passages he cites forms part of his argument. For example, consider the argument above in Romans 9:6ff. There Paul's point is that biological descent from Abraham does not secure salvation. He writes,

"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are
children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but 'Through Isaac shall
your descendants be named'" (Romans 9:6-7).

He Paul cites Genesis 21:12, which contains the word spoken by the Lord to Abraham. The context of this passage is hugely signficant for Paul's argument. In Genesis 21 Abraham is told that his descendants will be named through Isaac--and not Ishmael. Paul's point is simple: If Jews are going to assert that biological descent from Abraham secures salvation, ask them about Ishmael. The same kind of narrowing of the promised line occurs in the selection of Jacob over Esau--which, of course, is the point of the following verses (cf. Rom 9:10-13).

Now let's return to Paul's use of the Hosea passage in 9:25-26. Paul knows what Hosea prophesied--the Israelites who had been sent to Gentiles, who became "not my people" would one day be restored. On that day their status as God's people would be restored--"they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" That is how Paul can use this passage in reference to the Gentiles. He is NOT wrenching Hosea out of context.

I would also refer you to Acts, which I think is aware of Paul's program to bring the lost tribes home.

Why is Paul arrested in the Temple? It is clearly because of his association with the Gentiles (cf. Acts 26:28). Before King Agrippa Paul even explains his mission as a mission to the Gentiles. Relating his vision of the Lord, he explains:

"The Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles—to whom I send you" (Acts 26:15-17).

At the end of the book we read Paul preaching: "Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (Acts 28:28).

But here's what's fascinating. Paul's also understands his mission in terms of the pan-Israelite restoration. Note what Paul says to Agrippa in Acts 26:6-7:

"And now I stand here on trial for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king!"

Note: Paul's arrest for his Gentile association is ultimately wrapped up in his ministry to the twelve tribes. Wow! Also see Acts 9:15, where Paul's ministry is described in this way: “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel..." Paul is going to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and the sons of Israel.

So much more could be said. Paul goes on to talk about the fact that he has been arrested because of his belief in the resurrection. Clearly this is a reference to Jesus' resurrection. But do not forget that for ancient Jews resurrection was also an image frequently used to describe the restoration of the twelve tribes (e.g., cf. Ezek 37:1-14; Hos 6:1-2). In fact, as James Scott observes, in the ancient literature, the Greek term diaspora was not first used as a reference to "scattered" Israel. It primarily has the meaning of "decomposition" of a body after death. [See James Scott, “Exile and the Self-Understanding of Diaspora Jews,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 178-179. So Jesus' resurrection would likely have carried the further restoration implications.

Wish I had more time, but I've got to get back to the dissertation.

Mt. Sinai, the Temple and the Lord's Supper

2008-06-23T14:35:00.000-07:00

I highly recommend John Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6 (JSOTSup, 395; London: T & T Clark, 2004)--an excellent treatment of the Exodus material.

Among other things, I love what he says on page 137: “The events of Exodus 19-24 seem to serve as a paradigm for that cult, or to put it another way, the sanctuary cult models what it means for Israel to be a royal priesthood.”

He's right on. In fact, a close analysis of Exodus' account of the Sinai experience reveals something ancient Jews made more explicit in later works, namely, that Sinai was a proto-Temple.

Let me explain.

The graded holiness of the Tabernacle (i.e., the holy of holies [=most holy], the holy place, and the outer court [=least holy] reflects the Sinai experience. Most of the Israelites remained at the foot of the mountain (Exod 19:12, 23). The leaders were permitted to ascend upwards (Exod 19:22). However, Moses alone was allowed access into the cloud at the top (Exod 24:2). See Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 59:

“Both Sinai and the Tabernacle evidence a tripartite division. The summit corresponds to the inner sanctum, or Holy of Holies. The second zone, partway up the mountain, is the equivalent of the Tabernacle’s outer sanctum, or Holy Place. The third zone, at the foot of the mountain, is analogous to the outer court. As with the Tabernacle, the three distinct zones of Sinai feature three gradations of holiness in descending order. Just as Moses alone may ascend to the peak of the mountain, so all but one are barred from the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle.

(Of course, implicit in this is another idea made explicit in later Jewish literature--Moses’ priesthood!)

Likewise, see Göran Larsson, Bound for Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 134:

“Just as here at Sinai, there came to be an area to which all of Israel had access, another reserved for the priests, and finally an inner ‘holy of holies’ into which only the high priest could enter… The model for this division is found already here, and the tabernacle becomes an important way of carrying the Sinai experience forward during the subsequent wanderings…”

Key to all of this is the covenant ratification ceremony of Exodus 24--a passage Jesus' likely alludes to at the Last Supper:

Mark 14:23: "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (cf. Matt 26:28).

Exod 24:8: "And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” [Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on this verse reads, "This is the blood of the covenant"].

Much could be said here [wait for my dissertation!], but suffice it to say, if Jesus is linking the Eucharist with Exodus 24 the implications are huge.

If the Sinai experience was a Temple experience in which God's presence came to be with His people, how much more real is God's presence with His people in the Eucharistic celebration?

Rediscovering the Priesthood of Jesus

2008-06-18T14:14:00.001-07:00

“The priestly aspect of Jesus’ teaching, largely ignored by ‘critical scholarship’ and its Protestant bent, offensive to that Christianity which wishes Jesus to be done with Jewish forms, and invisible to that Judaism which relies on the Rabbis for its vocabulary, is a network of meanings. That network, once recognized, will establish its own coordinates of significance.”
--Bruce Chilton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), x.

“In general, priesthood has been marginalized in modern biblical studies. In the Old Testament the priesthood—its ordination, clothing, sacrificial and other responsibilities—is described with considerable detail; within the Pentateuch (Exodus-Numbers), in the works of the Chronicler and in other texts (e.g. Ezekiel, Zechariah 3–6, Malachi, Joel). But Old Testament scholarship has sometimes judged such material a lamentable decline in Israelite religion from the pure faith of the prophets and the Deuteronomist into a post-exilic obsession with cultic order and institutional religiosity… That antipathy has, until the postmodern resurgence of interest in metaphor, story, drama and sacrament, been validated by the modern fear of mystery, allegory and ritual (a.k.a. ‘magic’) and myth. Happily, Old Testament scholarship is now more attentive to these aspects of biblical religion and, thanks in particular to the leavening influence of Jewish members of the academy, the vital contribution of the priesthood and priestly theology for biblical religion is at last receiving the attention it deserves.”
--Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4/2 (2006): 156.

Why Was Jesus Blindfolded?

2008-06-04T18:29:00.000-07:00

This was a post I wanted to write during Holy Week but never got around to it.

It's often overlooked because there's so much else in the Passion narrative to think about, but there's a reference to the fact that Jesus was blindfolded by the guards. Here's what Luke says:

Luke 22:63-65: Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him; 64 they also blindfolded him and asked him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” 65 And they spoke many other words against him, reviling him.

Why did they blindfold Jesus and mock him about prophesying?

I would like to suggest that it had to do with an ancient interpretation of Isaiah's description of the messiah.

In Isaiah 11 we read a description of a coming Davidic king whom ancient Jews understood as the Messiah, as, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls attest (cf. e.g., 1Q28b 5).

Isa 11:1-4: There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. 2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.

The prophecy is very clear that the Messiah will not judge by what he sees or by what he hears. It also describes the Messiah as having powerful breath--it slays the wicked.

That this passage played a key role in ancient Jewish expectations about the coming Messiah is clear from the accounts of Simon bar Kokhba, a Jewish revolutionary of the early second century. Simon convinced many that he was the Messiah and drew quite a following. The Temple had been destroyed, but Simon seems to have promised that he would liberate Jerusalem from the Romans and even get it rebuilt. In fact, the famous Rabbi Aqiba was even counted as one of his followers.

Why was he so popular?

Well, for one thing, according to rabbinic tradition, the famous Aqiba held Simon to be the messiah because he believed Bar Kohkba was able to perform miraculous signs (cf. y. Ta‘an. 68d; also cf. Mishneh Torah, Melakhim 11:3).

Like what?

Jerome would later testimony that Simon “fanned a lighted blade of straw in his mouth with puffs of breath so as to give the impression that he was spewing out flames” (Rufinus 3.31; PL 23.480). This certainly seems to tap into Isaiah's vision of a Messiah with powerful breath.
What happened to Bar Kohkba? Well, he was eventually revealed as a fraud. Here's the story:

“Bar [Kokhba] reigned two and a half years, and then said to the Rabbis, ‘I am the Messiah.’ They answered, ‘Of Messiah it is written that he smells and judges: let us see whether he [Bar Kokhba] can do so.’ When they saw that he was unable to judge by the scent, they slew him” (cf. also m. Ta‘an. 4:6; b. Git. 57a-b; Lam. Rab. 2:2 §4).

Where did the rabbis get the idea that the Messiah would judge by scent and not by seeing or hearing? The most likely answer is that this idea emerged out of Isaiah's prophecy: "he shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear… .”

So why was it that Jesus was blindfolded? I would suggest that the Jewish guards were likely mocking Jesus, who refused to give them a spectacle of his power for their amusement. Note by the way that the blindfolded beating of Jesus is closely associated with his standing before Caiaphas who asks him about his messianic identity, which follows next in Luke 22:66-71.

Passover and the Domestic Temple

2008-06-01T11:41:00.001-07:00

According to the Old Testament prescriptions one had to eat the Passover in the Temple. This is clear from Deuteronomy16:2-7:

"And you shall offer the passover sacrifice to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd, at the place which the Lord will choose, to make his name dwell there . . . 7 And you shall boil it and eat it at the place which the Lord your God will choose; and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents.

The language here regarding "the place which the Lord will choose" is clearly a reference to the future Temple. Prescriptions for this Temple are found earlier in the book of Deuteronomy:

"But when you go over the Jordan, and live in the land which the Lord your God gives you to inherit, and when he gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you live in safety, 11 then to the place which the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell there, thither you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the offering that you present, and all your votive offerings which you vow to the Lord" (Deut 12:10-11)

In fact, that Deuteronomy 16 was interpreted as indicating that one must eat the Passover at the Temple is confirmed by a number of other ancient texts.

Jub. 49:16-17: “And it is not fitting to eat [the Passover] outside of the sanctuary of the Lord, but facing the sanctuary of the Lord. And all the people of the congregation of Israel will observe it in its (appointed) time.
11Q19 17:8-9: [Concerning the Passover Meal]: And they shall consume it [atnight] 9 in the courtyards of [the] sanctuary

However, this would mean that the Temple would be absolutely packed at Passover. Josephus tells us that hundreds of thousands come for Passover (cf. Deut 16:16; Jub. 49:21; Josephus, Ant. 17. 214). And in rabbinic tradition, one of the great miracles associated with the Temple was that it was never overcrowded, so that all Israel could worship with plenty of room to bow their heads in prayer (cf. m. Abot. 5:5).

Yet, as is abundantly clear from other texts we know in fact that the Passover was not eaten by Jews in the Temple.

Indeed, the the rabbinic laws simply stipulate that it must simply eaten within Jerusalem (cf. Sipre Num. 9:10 (69), m. Pesah 7:9). The boundaries were extended--thus if the paschal lamb taken outside of the city it had to be burned (m. Pesah. 7:9). One had to remain in Jerusalem during Passover night (Sipre Deut. 16:7 [134]; Sipre Num. 151; t. Pesah. 8:8 ) though one was allowed to retire to a sleeping place outside the city after midnight, the hour the Israelites had left Egypt (t. Pesah. 8:17) [1]

Here then we have a great example of how the holiness of the Temple was extended to the entire city--though it seems that most texts that relate to the idea seem to talk about the eschatological age (e.g., Zech 14:20-21).

Moreover, according the rabbinic writing one would simply eat the Passover as part of a haburah, a designated group which functioned as a “household” (cf. Mek. 12:46). The amazing thing is that the household seems to function as a kind of micro-temple.

Interestingly enough it seems that on Passover then the family or the haburah was turned into a domestic Temple, since the rules outlined in Deuteronomy became applied to the household.

Something analogous to this is found in Philo, where Passover is linked not only with the idea of the domestic temple but also with the idea of Israel's common priesthood.

Philo, Special Laws, 2.146, 147-149: [in the first Passover] they sacrificed at that time themselves out of their exceeding joy, without waiting for priests… (147) But those who are in the habit of turning plain stories into allegory, argue that the passover figuratively represents the purification of the soul... (148) And each house is at that time invested with the character and dignity of a temple, the victim being sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who has provided it and of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with holy ablutions…

It is no wonder than that the early Jewish Christians understood what Christ had come to do--he had come to make the Church His Temple and its members part of the royal priesthoood (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-10).

NOTES
[1] Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (3d ed.; London: SCM, 1966) 43, n. 2;55, 75; idem., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (rev. ed.; London: SCM, 1969), 115-16.; Gustaf Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua (London: S.P.C.K., 1929) 93-95. This, of course, has huge implications for understanding the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, where Jesus very clearly eats a meal within the city, though he apparently retires to a place outside of it (Bethany prior to feast, cf. John 12:1; cf. Mark 11:11 and the Mount of Olives afterwards, cf. Jn 18:1; Matt 26:30). Such actions only make sense if Jesus was eating the Passover. But I digress...

Why All Disciples Are Like Levites

2008-05-20T23:21:00.001-07:00

This post heading might sound bizarre but hear me out on this one.

First, let's begin with Jesus' words:

Luke 14:26-27: Jesus explains what itmeans to be a disciple: "“If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Jesus' words are hard to hear, but easy to understand: disciples must learn to love Christ above all else.

But there might be a deeper level of meaning here.
Jesus' words that one must reject everything--kin and all else--in order to become his disciple evokes the description of the Levites in the Old Testament.

What was it that the Levites had to do in order to obtain the priesthood?

The story is found in Exodus 32. There, while Moses is up on Mt. Sinai the Israelites do the unthinkable--they worship a golden calf. We all know what happens next. Moses comes down the mountain and asks, "Who is on the Lord’s side?" (Exod 32:26). The Levites respond. At Moses' direction they go through the camp and slay all the idolatrous Israelites. Indeed, the Levites were not to spare anyone. While it is mere speculation, one could well imagine that some of those they had to kill were people they knew.

In fact, this may be implied in what Moses says after they have accomplished their mission:

"And Moses said, 'Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day'" (Exod 32:29)

Later, when Moses blesses the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy 33 we read something similar. The following is taken from the Septuagint's version of Deuteronomy 33:9: “The one saying to his father and his mother ‘I have not seen you’ and his brother he did not acknowledge and his children he disowned.”

Moreover, unlike the other tribes, Levi is given no land--no "inheritance"--in the Promised Land. The reasoning is given in Deuteronomy 10:9:

"Therefore Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers; the Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your God said to him" (cf. also Num 18:20, 23; Deut 18:1-2; Neh 13:10).

The Levites are priests but only at the cost of kin and property.

Indeed, the similarities are striking. The Levites have had to renounce ("he did not acknowledge") their own family members--father, mother, brother. Likewise, Jesus explains that his disciples must renounce "father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters".

His disciples therefore are called to be spiritual priests. In this his disciples fulfill the original vocation of Israel, described in Exodus 19:6: "you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." However, because of their idolatry the priesthood went only to the Levites.

1 Peter explains that this vocation now belongs to believers: " But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet 2:9).

Believers are called to be priests. But what does it mean to be a priest? Hebrews 8:3 helps here: "every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices." A priest offers sacrifices.

If believers are called to be priests they are called to offer a sacrifice--themselves.

Romans 12 explains: "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Rom 12:1).

Believers fulfill their vocation through offering up their own lives as sacrifices--especially by suffering. 1 Peter goes on to make this clear:

Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, 2 so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer by human passions but by the will of God... 12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed" (1 Pet 4:1-2, 12-13).

A few days ago I wrote a post on the Church as the Heavenly Temple. I cited Peter's words about the Church as a spiritual temple. I believe this post is related to that theme. Discipleship means priesthood--it means self-sacrifice.

Or in Jesus' words: "Take up your cross and follow me."

(For more on the priestly themes of Luke 14 see Cripsin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus Inspects His Priestly War Party (Luke 14:25-33),” in The Old Testament in the New Testament. Essays in Honour of J.L. North (ed. S. Moyise; JSNTS 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 126-143.)

Pentecost's "Tongues of Fire" and the Heavenly Temple

2008-05-10T16:22:00.001-07:00

Tomorrow is Pentecost. Of course, we all know the story from the book of Acts which relates how the Spirit came and descended upon the apostles in the form of those “tongues of fire”. But I’ve always wondered―why tongues of fire?

Of course, one thing Pentecost does is reverse the scattering that took place at Babel where languages--or "tongues"--were confused. But recently I discovered another possible background. Let me explain.

In Jesus’ day “messianic” hopes went hand-in-hand with the idea of a restoration of the tribes of Israel scattered to the nations. This is evident from numerous texts and has been observed by a plethora of scholars. In fact, the idea that God would one day restore Israel from exile is even found on the lips of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy. After first warning Israel that falling away from the covenant would mean judgment and exile, he goes on to say:

“And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, 2 and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul; 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes, and have compassion upon you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you (Deut 30:1-3).

E. P. Sanders has even gone so far as to say: “In general terms it may be said that ‘Jewish eschatology’ and ‘the restoration of Israel’ are almost synonymous” (Jesus and Judaism, 97). In addition, this eschatological ingathering would include not only the Israelites but the Gentiles as well.[1]

So there would be an ingathering of Israel from the nations. But where would they be gathered to? The answer was also clear to ancient Jews: the Temple. This is also evident in many texts. See for example Isaiah 2, which offers a programmatic vision for the restoration:

“It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, 3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths” (Isa 2:2-3).

Much more could be said (believe me, my dissertation covers a lot of this ground!). In fact, the book of Acts, and especially the account of Pentecost is loaded with texts relating the fulfillment of these restoration expectations. I’ve already discussed that here.

In fact, Jesus himself is described in the New Testament as the New Temple (e.g., John 2:19-21; cf. Mark 15:38). The ingathering thus takes place as we come to Jesus.

So how do the tongues of fire fit in here?

Well, one of the most prominent passages relating a vision of tongues of fire is found in 1 Enoch 14. There Enoch is led into the heavenly temple. Here is how it is described:

“…and in the vision, the winders were causing me to fly and rushing me high up into heaven. And I kept coming (into heaven) until I approached a wall which was built of white marble and surrounded by tongues of fire; and it began to frighten me. And I came into the tongues of fire and drew near to a great house which was built of white marble, and the inner wall(s) were like mosaics…And I entered into the house… And behold there was an opening before me (and) a second house which is greater than the former and everything was built with tongues of fire. And in every respect it excelled the other)―in glory and great honor―to the extent that it is impossible for me to recount to you concerning its glory and greatness… And I observed and saw inside a lofty throne―its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun; and I heard the voice of the cheribum; and from beneath the throne were issuing streams of flaming fire. It was difficult to look at it. And the Great Glory was sitting upon it…” (1 Enoch 14:8ff).

The heavenly house is almost certainly meant to be understood as the heavenly temple. Language such as “I drew near” and the image of God’s throne were closely associated with Israel’s worship of God in the Temple (cf. Ps 11:4).

The key here is that the heavenly temple is characterized with tongues of fire.

Much more could be said about 1 Enoch, but for the simplicity of this post let’s move back to Acts 2. That the Church is the temple of God is attested elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul explicitly calls the Church the temple in 1 Corinthians 3:16: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” The idea is also found in Ephesians 2:21, which describes the Church united to Christ growing into a “holy temple”. In fact, for a great treatment of dozens of other passages relating the Temple to the Church see G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Given the prominence of the tongues of fire in the vision of the heavenly Temple in 1 Enoch―a book well-known to the early Jewish believers and even cited in the book of Jude―it seems to me that the tongues of fire in Acts may be read in terms of New Temple imagery. It would seem hard to believe the early readers of Luke would not have made the connection. Thus, Acts 2 describes how the ingathering to the heavenly Temple would be realized through the Church’s ministry. By uniting oneself to the Church one was gaining access to the heavenly temple. The Church therefore is not merely an earthly phenemona―it is heavenly.

Important support for such a reading may be found in Revelation 1-3 where one encounters a vision of Jesus in the heavenly temple, surrounded by seven lampstands, each with seven “torches” burning. We are told that “the seven lampstands are the seven churches” (Rev. 1:20). Many have also seen the seven torches as in image of the Spirit [cf. Zech 4:10; Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 189]. Warning the churches not to fall away, Christ warns those who will not hear him that he will “remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent (Rev 2:5). The idea seems to be clear. Somehow the churches have a presence—a lampstand—in the heavenly temple. If they do not repent, they will be removed.

The heavenly dimension of the Church’s existence is even more clear in Hebrews 12.

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:22-24).

Note the language―not you will come to "innumerable angels...the assembly...spirits of just men made perfect...and to Jesus", but you have come. By the way, the word for "assembly" in Greek here is ekklēsia--"Church". The author says, "you have come to the Church" of those enrolled in heaven.

The tongues of fire in Acts 2 therefore seem to evoke 1 Enoch and teach us that the ingathering is taking place at the heavenly temple through the Church’s ministry.

NOTES
[1] Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 289-98; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 299-338; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 393-96. Especially of note is the recent treatment by Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (Library of Historical Jesus Studies 331; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 26-29, which offers an extensive examination of the presence of such hopes in ancient Judaism. Bird cites a number of texts where the restoration of Israel is linked with the idea of the salvation of the Gentiles either en masse (cf. Isa 11:6-10; 42:1-12; 49:6; 66:23; Zeph 2:11; Zech 2:15; Tob 14: 6-7; T. Jud 24:6; 25:5; T. Sim 7:2; T. Dan. 5:11; T. Ash. 7:3; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Benj. 10:5; 2 Bar 68:5; Sib. Or. 5:493-500) or as merely a remnant (cf. Jub. 2:28; T. Naph. 8:2-3; Amidah 13; 4 Ezra 3:36; 2 Bar 42:5; 72:2-6; also cf. t. Sanh. 13:2; T. Naph. 8:3-4), acknowledging and praising the God of Israel (cf. Dan 3:28-29; 4:1-37; 6:26-28; Pss. 66:1-12; 22:27-28; 46:10; 96:7-10; 117:1-2; Ezek 39:7; 2 Macc 2:28; T. Jud 25:5; Bel. 41-42; Ep. Arist 177, 187-294; Jos. And As. 15:7-8) and accepting the Law of God (cf. Philo, Vit. Mos 2:36, 43-44; Sib Or 5:264-66; 2 En. 33:9; 48:6-9). A number of texts attest to the idea of Israel’s conquering of the Gentiles (cf. Num 24:7, 17 LXX; Pss 2:8-11; 10:15-16; 22:28; 46:6-11; 47:1-9; 48:1-8; Isa 49:23; 54:3; Dan 2:44; 7:14, 27; Obad 21; Zech 14:9; Amos 9:11-12; Zeph 2:1-3; 3:14-20; Mic 5:9; 7:16-17; 1 Macc 4:11; Bar 4:25, 31-35; 4 Ezra 6:26; Jub 26:23; Sib Or 3:49; T. Jud. 24:6; T. Zeb 9:8; 1 En. 48:7-10; T. Mos 10:1-7; Pss. Sol. 17:1-34; Philo, Praem. Poen. 79, 93-97; Vit. Mos. 1.290; Tg. Isa. 30:18-33; 1 QM 1:4-5; 6.5-6; 12:10-16; 19:3-8; Josephus, B. J. 6.312). However, Bird importantly also observes that in many texts the expectation of the destruction of the Gentile nations appears alongside hope for their (partial) salvation (cf. e.g., Isa 66:15-21; 2 Bar 72:2-6; t. Sanh. 13:2; Pss. Sol. 17:22-25, 30-31). Thus, Bird rightly concludes, “views of defeat and admission of the Gentiles were not necessarily mutually exclusive."

The Good Samaritans of the Old Testament

2008-05-04T20:47:00.000-07:00

We all know that the Jews and Samaritans in Jesus' day harbored serious animosity towards each other. And so the story of the Good Samaritan is often rightly understood as teaching the importance of showing charity to all, regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc.

But--like just about everything else in the Gospels--there's likely an Old Testament episode lying in the background.

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but here I want to talk about some specific aspects of the story, so let's just review. Jesus begins, of course, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead" (Luke 10:30).

After a Levite and a priest come along, passing by on the opposite side, a Samaritan comes along.

Luke 10:25-37: "But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, 34 and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’"

Jesus then asks, "Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (Luke 10:36). When the answer comes, “The one who showed mercy on him,” Jesus responds, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37-38).

Okay--we all know that the point Jesus is making a point about the need to put nationalist tendencies aside. But is it possible that Jesus is drawing the imagery here from on an Old Testament episode?

2 Chronicles 28 relates a story about a battle between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The northern kingdom overpowers those from the south and take captive the people from Judah, including two hundred thousand women and children. However, after the prophet warns the northern tribes that they have sinned in taking captive those from Judea, certain chief men from the northern tribes take pity on the prisoneers (2 Chron. 28:8-11). They stand up to those coming back from the battle, condemning their actions. What happens sounds very familiar.

2 Chron. 28:15: And the men who have been mentioned by name rose and took the captives, and with the spoil they clothed all that were naked among them; they clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them; and carrying all the feeble among them on asses, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria.

It seems likely that the story of the Good Samaritan is drawing on this episode. There we read about northern Israelites showing compassion on those from Judah. They attend to their needs, place them on their animals, and take them to a place where they can be left to be cared for. In other words, they do what the Good Samaritan does in the story in Luke's Gospel.

Once again, it would seem, Jesus' teaching seems to flow from Israel's story. In fact, the story would seem to fit into Jesus' larger program in Luke's Gospel--the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom and specifically, his concern for Judah and Israel. Interestingly, this account from 2 Chronicles is followed by Hezekiah's famous Passover. For more on the Davidic imagery in Luke's Gospel read this.

TIME Magazine: "'Liberal' Catholicism Dead"

2008-05-04T11:06:00.000-07:00

"Are you a liberal or a conservative Catholic?"

I absolutely hate that question. What it tries to do is politicize the Church. And when people ask me that question I tell them exactly that and then say, "I'm just Catholic." I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

Of course, that's not good enough for some people, who then conclude: "Oh, so you're a conservative."

Well, let me tell you, I like the Mass said in English--I love it that Vatican II did that. I also love that the Council expanded reformed the Liturgy of the Word and lectionary cycle--it's way better than what we had before (far less Scripture was read!). Indeed, I could go on and on about things I love about Vatican II.

Even more, I have nothing bad to say about Vatican II!

Here's the way it is: I'm not Catholic simply because I was born Catholic. While I was raised a Catholic, I continue to be Catholic because I choose to be. At the same time, I am not Catholic because I suppose that I am the best arbiter of truth and because, in my great wisdom, I have decided that the Catholic Church comes closest to what I think is right. I don't that's the kind of system Christ established. I think he left his teaching authority with the apostles, especially Peter, and I think we have to submit ourselves to that authority, which they expected would belong to their successors. This was clearly what Paul, and early figures like Clement and Ignatius thought!

I want to agree with the Church, not convince the Church that it needs to agree with me.

Nonetheless, I still get asked: "Are you a liberal or conservative Catholic?" And I just keep responding: "I'm just Catholic."

Of course, there are Catholics who identify themselves as conservative or liberal. Some will say that "Catholic" isn't good enough for them. They've decided the Church doesn't fit well with their own theology. They want something different: "let's repeal Vatican II, it did too much" ("conservatives") or "let's have a Vatican III, it didn't change enough".

While most of those who really believe Vatican II was evil have simply stepped out of the Church and into sects like the Society of Pius X, those who think the Church needs to change its teachings on things like abortion have not. A clear example of such a person is Rudy Guiliani, who has actively protested the Church's teaching on abortion while insisting that he's still a Catholic.

In fact, those my age vividly recall those from older generations--especially those who grew up in the sixties--teaching us things slogans like, "We are Church," a phrase understood as a rallying cry against the teachings of Church. I specifically recall having a Confirmation teacher who liked to take issue with this or that belief, explaining that, for example, things like "hell" were not really something we needed to accept as Catholics. "Hmmm," I remember thinking, "If he doesn't believe what Catholics believe, why would he still want to be Catholic? Why not join a church he thinks is correct."

Of course, such Catholics as my confirmation teacher would quickly identify themselves as "progressive" or "liberal" Catholics. Well, all I have to say is that not too many people from my generation have got "hip" to their ideas. We recognize that many of them have devoted their lives to serving the Church--many of them were our religious education teachers--and we love them. But those such movements are clearly fading. I know it. Others my age know it. It's just a fact.

In fact, this is just a demographic fact. Let's face it, those who want to change the Church's teaching on birth control and abortion are just not reproducing themselves as fast as those who accept it. And, frankly, looking at the "progress" they've made in the last forty years doesn't really inspire hope in younger people that the "cause" to change the Church in such ways is really going to take off.

Now, all I've been saying is kind of "insider" analysis. What blew me away was to see TIME Magazine do a story on this. Check it out:

He may not have been thinking about it at the time, but Pope Benedict, in the course of his recent U.S. visit may have dealt a knockout blow to the liberal American Catholicism that has challenged Rome since the early 1960s....
The liberal rebellion in American Catholicism has dogged Benedict and his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. "Vatican II," which overhauled much of Catholic teaching and ritual, had a revolutionary impact on the Church as a whole. It enabled people to hear the Mass in their own languages; embraced the principle of religious freedom; rejected anti-semitism; and permitted Catholic scholars to grapple with modernity.
But Vatican II meant even more to a generation of devout but restless young people in the U.S. rather than a course correction, Terrence Tilley, now head of the Fordham University's theology department, wrote recently, his generation perceived "an interruption of history, a divine typhoon that left only the keel and structure of the church unchanged." They discerned in the Council a call to greater church democracy, and an assertion of individual conscience that could stand up to the authority of even the Pope. So, they battled the Vatican's birth-control ban, its rejection of female priests and insistence on celibacy, and its authoritarianism.
Rome pushed back, and the ensuing struggle defined a movement, whose icons included peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan, feminist Sister Joan Chittister, and sociologist/author Fr. Andrew Greeley. Its perspectives were covered in The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and America. Martin Sheen held down Hollywood, and the movement even boasted its own cheesy singing act: the St. Louis Jesuits. The reformers' premier membership organization was Call to Action, but their influence was felt at the highest reaches of the American Church, as sympathetic American bishops passed left-leaning statements on nuclear weapons and economic justice. Remarks Tilley, "For a couple of generations, progressivism was an [important] way to be Catholic."
Then he adds, "But I think the end of an era is here."

After citing some people who, in essence, disagree with this analysis. The article goes on to basically say what I have above:

But the familiar progressives-versus-Vatican paradigm seems almost certain to be undone by a looming demographic tsunami. Almost everyone agrees that the "millennial generation," born in 1980 or later, while sharing liberal views on many issues, has no desire to mount the barricades. Notes Reese, "Younger Catholics don't argue with the bishops; they simply do what they want or shop for another church." And Hispanic Catholics, who may be the U.S. majority by 2020, don't see this as their battle. "I'm sure they're happy that the celebration of the Eucharist is in the vernacular," says Tilley, "but they don't have significant issues connected to Vatican II."

You can read the whole thing here. It is odd to me that the article somehow implies that sexual abuse scandal was good for "progressive" Catholics. The abuse clearly happened in all places, not simply in "conservative" or "liberal" strongholds.

Five Reasons the Ascension Was Necessary

2008-04-30T18:46:00.000-07:00

Following up on the series of posts Brant and I have done on how the work of Christ saves us, I thought it appropriate to close it out today by looking at what Thomas Aquinas says about the Ascension (cf. ST IIIa, q. 57, art. 1 and art. 6).

The ascension saves us in two ways, first of all as it pertains to us and secondly as it pertains to Christ.

Through His Ascension our souls are lifted up to Him, because his ascension fosters faith, hope and love.

1. It helps foster faith in Him, since, if we could see him on earth there would be little faith involved since faith is belief in things unseen (cf. Heb 11:1 , cf. John 20:29). His visible presence could even be an obstacle to supernatural faith!

2. It also inspires hope―the hope of our own future admission into heaven. Jesus didn’t become man, die, rise from the dead and ascend into heaven for his benefit, but for ours! Thomas quotes the Gospel of John where Jesus says, “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (John 14:2-3).

3. It also impels us to grow in charity―that is, it directs our love towards heavenly things and away from earthly things. Thomas cites three key texts. First, St. Paul writes, “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Thomas also cites Jesus’ words: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt 6:21). And, finally, he explains that the Ascension effects charity in our hearts since Jesus goes to the Father to send us the Holy Spirit, who teaches us how to love (cf. John 16:7).

4. It helps us grow in our reverence for Christ, since his ascension reveals his glory, as he goes to sit at the right hand of God. With such a revelation of his glory, we come to the fullest possible understanding of who He is as the Son of Man to whom all glory and dominion belong.

But the ascension has another dimension too.

5. Thomas explains that in the Ascension Jesus enters into heaven with our humanity! He glorifies human nature! Again, he didn’t do this for himself, but for us. Here Thomas cites Micah 2:13, "He shall go up that shall open the way before them." Thomas says, Christ is the Head―and where the Head goes, the Body (the Mystical Body) follows. This is how Jesus himself explains the Ascension: “that where I am you may be also” (John 14:3). Thus Jesus leads those souls he went to in his descent into Hell on Holy Saturday into heaven. Aquinas cites Psalm 67:19 and Ephesians 4, where Paul explains, “Therefore it is said, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.’ 9 (In saying, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things)” (Eph 4:8-10).

Thomas sums it up in this way: “Christ's Passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven, properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin, and also by way of merit: whereas Christ's Ascension is the direct cause of our ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our Head, with whom the members must be united.”