Theology for the Masses

Sometimes a person can read the Scripture and completely pass over a particular text that can have massive import on shaping one’s theology and understanding of a particular doctrine. I can remember my time as an Arminian (though not a full five-pointer as I was and am Southern Baptist) skipping over John 6 and Romans 9. If I ever did read them I would just pass over them quickly and not pay attention to them. I know that Arminians can have their take on those texts but at least he or she has a theology shaped by them, mine wasn’t. The same is true for me in regards to Romans 4:25. What Paul says there is very important to shaping justification and how to understand our right standing before God and Jesus’ role in accomplishing that standing. The background for understanding this text is Isaiah 53:11 and the following is my attempt to persuade you the read to see that. Continue reading Romans 4:25 and Isaiah 53:11

(via Biblia Hebraica)

Moving along in my dabbling in the justification passages in Paul and their relationship to Isaiah 53:11. In Acts 13:38-39, the resurrection of the crucified Jesus in an unstated way effected justification for “everyone who believes.” This parallels what was seen in Isaiah 53:11 where the “Righteous One, my [Yahweh's] servant will justify the many.” Isaiah 53:11 provided the conceptual framework for Paul to articulate justification as he did in Antioch Psidia, resurrection leads to justification. First Timothy 3:16 is another text that I’d likd to look at. Isaiah’s prophecy figures very prominently in Paul’s letter to young Timothy Continue reading Timothy and Isaiah

Last time we looked at Isaiah 53:11 and saw that through the resurrection of the Suffering Servant he became the Righteous One. And through this one, who is now the Righteous One, the many are justified. Now how does this provide a background for the Pauline doctrine and formulation of justification? That is the question we turn to here in the next few posts. First is the book of Acts, specifically Paul’s statements. Up first is Acts 13:37-39. Continue reading Isaiah 53:11 and Acts 13:38-39

In reading Michael Bird’s The Saving Righteousness of God, I have come to realize just how important Isaiah 53:11 is to many of Paul’s passages that formulate and utilize his doctrine of justification when dealing with his audiences and troubles, for example the Jew-Gentile divide in Romans and Galatians. I want to briefly delve into this simple text and paint a background for the many places that Paul speaks of justification that does not seem to fit neatly with the traditional Protestant view (this post follows much of what Bird said in The Saving Righteousness of God). Then in the coming posts I want to just illustrate how Isaiah 53:11 impacts those Pauline texts in his letters and in Acts that reflects this verse and understanding. Continue reading Background for NT Justification in Paul

Anyone know of good sources for Roman rhetorical strategies?  I cam across these three resources that might be of help.  I have come across a primer of the subject in ESF’s commentary on the Apocalypse of John that I am working my way through.

1. R. Dean Anderson, Ancient rhetorical theory and Paul (Peeters Publishers, 1999).
2. Justin T. Gleeson, Rediscovering Rhetoric (Federation Press, 2008).
3. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Gerhard A. Krodel, Revelation (Fortress Press, 1991).
4. Donald Lemen Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman education (Columbia University Press, 1957).

Something I have been wondering about recently is the use of judicial language in letters and our interpretation of said letters. Often antique rhetoric (art of persuation) would employ the language of judicial proceedings to describe/persuade the recipient. In fact these authors were not saying their subject matter functioned as law courts, but the language of law courts was the form through which they made their arguement.

Now, this is just some stuff off the top of my head and I’d need some examples for me to be taken seriously. I am just wondering about this over breakfast.

Saying “I’ll only eat protein because it is the most important food” is like saying “I’ll only preach the cross because it is the most important part of Christianity.” [1]

- An Unnamed Person I trust.

1. With that said, you had better be eating protein and you had better be preaching the cross. [↩]

This is my second post on early Christian sources for women’s leadership.  Today we are going to look at inscriptions.  They are a great source for attitudes in Antiquity.  Today I want to look at some epitaphs, or burial inscriptions. [1]

A note about sources: If you notice, most of these are from later antiquity [2] .  I am sure that for some of you, this delegitimizes the validity of the claims.  You need to realize the nature of our sources.  Any physical sources for Christianity before the 3rd century are almost non-existent.  This is because of two interrelated factors.  First, Christians are persecuted both by the state intermittently and by the Roman “pagan” populace for being a supertitio.  Secondly, there just aren’t that many Christians in the empire up until this point.  I’d be like looking for female Mormon headstones in the late 19th century compared to today.

What we see is that during the 3-6th centuries, there were definitely women elders and deacons in various locations within the Roman Empire.  Women are in positions of leadership in the early church, both as elders and deacons, as bishops and presbyters.

Secondly, we also see a variation of gendering of the term deacon.  Sometimes it is used in the feminine and sometimes it is used with females in the masculine.  What is uncertain about the terms deacon and deaconess is the responsibilities that each conveyed.  There is abundant literary and physical evidence for deaconesses who’s job it was to minister to women to avoid suspicions of lewdness.  Male deacons were charged with men; women deacons were charged with women.  However, the pairing of deacon in the masculine with a female creates some confusion.  Is this just a regional naming practice or does it denote something deeper?  Were there deacons who were charged with the ministering to the entire congregation?  Given the evidence of Pliny’s letter to Trajan, this seems to be the case.  However, it is still uncertain as to which is the case.

1) Elder Kale, Centuripae, Sicily, 4th-5th Century CE

Here lies Kale the Elder.  She lived 50 years blamelessly.

2) Elder Ammion, Ucak, Phrygia, 3rd Century CE

Diogas, the bishop, for Ammion [f.], the elder, in memory

3) Sophia the Deacon, the Second Phoebe, Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, late 4th Cent. CE

Here lies the servant and bride of Christ
Sophia the deacon, the second Phoebe,
Falling asleep on the 21st of the month of March
In the 11th indiction
…Lord God…

4) Deaconess Athanasia, Delphi, Greece, 5th Cent. CE

The most pious deaconess Athanasia,
having lived a blameless life modestly,
having been ordained a deaconess by the most holy bishop Pantamianos,
made this monument: in it lie her remains.
Anyone who dares to open this monument,
in which the deaconess has been deposited,
will have the portion of Judas,
the betrayer of our Lord, Jesus Christ…

5) Deacon Maria, Archelais, Cappodocia, Turkey, 6th Century CE

Here lies Maria the deacon, of pious and blessed memory,
who in accordance with the speech of the apostle [3] reared children,
practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, shared her bread with the afflicted.
Remember her, Lord, when you come into your kingdom.

6) Monument erected by Domna, the Deacon, Bulduk, Turkey, unknown date

Domna the deacon, daughter of Theophilos the elder, set up [the monument] to her father-in-law, Miros, and to her husband, Patroklos, in memory.

7) A Vow fulfilled by the Deacon Agrippiane, Patrae, Greece, unknown date

The Deacon Agrippiane, most beloved of God, made the mosaic because of her vow.

8) A Vow Fulfilled by a Deaconess, Stobi, Macedonia, 4th or 5th Century CE

Because of her vow, Mat(rona?) [or “of the vow of the maton], the most pious deaconess, paved the exedra with mosaic.

1. Source: Ross Shepard Kraemer, Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). [↩]
2. to use Peter Brown’s conception of the ages [↩]
3. 1st Tim 4:10 [↩]

Such a reading as proposed in my post series presents challenges to modern interpreters of the text. Those wishing to do a historical study of Paul and early Christian movements are need not be troubled by this. We see a Paul that is consistently egalitarian in the sense that women were on par with men from an ontological and practical standpoint. His statements on gender in Galatians and his mention of women co-workers and patrons in Romans and elsewhere no longer are besieged by the contradictions found in 1 Corinthians 11.

However, one needs to be careful that Paul is made into a modern day feminist. Paul lived in a different world from us and practical matters still trumped idealistic concerns. [1] If we construct a reading of Paul that is too clean, too idealized, then we are in danger of allowing our ideologies to overshadow the text. I do not thing this is the case in my reading, but is a very real possibility. Further exploration of the topic is needed to protect against this. I have only been able to flesh out the beginnings of my hypothesis.

Another issue of importance is that if my hypothesis is correct, then the interpolation was canonized was canonized along with the rest of the letter. This has serious implications for modern interpreters that seek a unified interpretation in the modern New Testament canon. Diametrically opposed views on gender are canonized. If the textual hypothesis is correct, then 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 stands firmly against what the historical Paul thought and taught about gender and Church practice. However, there is another voice which was canonized – a voice that showed up very early and intensified quickly as evidenced in the Pastorals and the Early Church Fathers. Therefore, interpreters must not strip out the interpolations, but to craft interpretations that are able to adequately deal with separate and distinct authors, traditions, and interpretations with the text itself.

Then the question becomes, what do we do with multiple and opposed voices within our text?  How do we, as removed interpreters, hold them in tandem, one along side with the other, without quelling either?

1. See 1 Corinthians 14 and the silencing of women, see Paul’s views on eating meat sacrificed to idols, etc. [↩]

One of the topics that is very dear to me is the role and function of women in early Christianity (both canon and post-canon).  A few days ago, I came across a post by the warm and fussy Jim West who linked to Gary Macy’s podcast on women being ordained until the 12th Century.  Edgar asked me why none of this shows up anywhere.

In this series, I’d like to highlight some of the primary sources for women being ordained in the early church.  I’ll cover official church documents, Roman sources, and unofficial church documents.  Today I am going to look at a letter dated in the early second century concerning a Roman governor’s report of Christian activity to the Emperor.

Source one: Pliny the Younger’s Letter to Trajan.

If there was one thing the Roman’s did not get, it was supertitio such as Christianity.   Christianity befuddled the Romans.  Why should a group Jews [1] revere a executed Roman criminal as a God?   Furthermore, why would people show such an excessive devotion to this person.  As weird as the Jews were to the Romans, these Christians  were even more excessive.

Viewing Christians through the eyes of the Romans helps us negate a certain bias inherent in any internal Christian writing.  Quite naturally, Christians writers were/are heavily invested in painting their brand of Christianity as the correct one over and against all other brands of Christianity, including internal dissenters within their own community (Think about a Cowboys or Boston fan writing about the NFL or the NBA).  Roman sources, while handicapped as mentioned above, bypass this bias.

In this letter from a Roman governor to the Emperor, Pliny asks Trajan what he should do with these darn Christians that have been rounded up.  There are a couple of telling passages in this letter, both about early Christian practice and for our immediate purposes, women’s roles in the early Church:

…They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it…

(it is worth mentioning that this is the earliest non-christian course for christian practice)

What do we see here?  We see, around 110CE, a local assembly of Christians in the Bithynia-Pontus province that consisted of the complete strata of Roman society.  Slaves, freed persons, rich, poor, young and old.  Pliny, in his quest to find something prosecutable among their deeds, tortures two of the leaders of the community.  Horrifyingly enough (for an elite Roman) the leaders of this community were two slave women.

Thus, we see in unbiased Roman sources that historically women served as deacons in the early Church and, at least in Bithynia-Pontus, they were the leaders of the community, as least as it related to outsiders.

Now, there are some things that need to be held in tension here.  First, is this representative of Christianity of this period?  It is only one source, after all.  Secondly, how do we know that these were the leaders.  All Pliny really mentions is that they are deaconesses (the female form of deacon).  To be minimal in our interpretation of the letter, perhaps that there were women deacons is all we can say.  But, we can say that.  Additionally, it is these two and only these two that Pliny plucked out and tortured.  He would have gone right to the top of the community’s hierarchy to do this.  So, assuming these were the only leaders is a bit of a stretch, but, as stretching goes.  It is about two miles short of the gymnastics Christian historians go through when they try to make the whole of the Bible historically accurate and consistent.  So, as leaps go, it is pretty small.

1. Romans saw them all as Jews [↩]

From The Rise of Christianity: [1] by R. Stark:

Free-rider problems are the Achilles’ heel of collective activities. […] “Truly rational actors will not join a group to pursue common ends when, without participating, they can reap the benefit of other people’s activity in obtaining them.  If every member of the relevant group can share the benefits… then the rational thing is to free ride… rather than to help attain the corporate interest.” [2]

Do you see this being the case?  The Canonical Church certainly faced these issues and attempted to put measures in place to limit freeloading.  We see it in the Pastorals, James, Peter, etc.  In our zeal to be an Acts 2 Church, do we ever miss out of the pragmatics of the Acts 2< church?

1. Subtitle: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religous Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. [↩]
2. Here Stark is quoting Hetchter (1987:27). [↩]

Dear brothers and sisters, when troubles come your way, consider it an opportunity for great joy. For you know that when your faith is tested, your endurance has a chance to grow. So let it grow, for when your endurance is fully developed, you will be perfect and complete, needing nothing.

If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking. But when you ask him, be sure that your faith is in God alone. Do not waver, for a person with divided loyalty is as unsettled as a wave of the sea that is blown and tossed by the wind. Such people should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Their loyalty is divided between God and the world, and they are unstable in everything they do.

Believers who are poor have something to boast about, for God has honored them. And those who are rich should boast that God has humbled them. They will fade away like a little flower in the field. The hot sun rises and the grass withers; the little flower droops and falls, and its beauty fades away. In the same way, the rich will fade away with all of their achievements.

God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. And remember, when you are being tempted, do not say, “God is tempting me.” God is never tempted to do wrong, and he never tempts anyone else. Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away. These desires give birth to sinful actions. And when sin is allowed to grow, it gives birth to death.

So don’t be misled, my dear brothers and sisters. Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our Father, who created all the lights in the heavens. He never changes or casts a shifting shadow.He chose to give birth to us by giving us his true word. And we, out of all creation, became his prized possession.

Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters: You must all be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry. Human anger does not produce the righteousness God desires. So get rid of all the filth and evil in your lives, and humbly accept the word God has planted in your hearts, for it has the power to save your souls.

But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves. For if you listen to the word and don’t obey, it is like glancing at your face in a mirror. You see yourself, walk away, and forget what you look like. But if you look carefully into the perfect law that sets you free, and if you do what it says and don’t forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it.

If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

From James to Jewish Christians

As I am nearing the completion of my degree and am on the cusp of having time to think on theological matters once again, I am struck by the inclusion of letters, letters, from Paul [1] to various peoples in the Canon.  I am an absolute Canonist (this will show up in an upcoming post which will complete my Paul and 1 Cor 11 series which has been on hold as I completed many school projects.) and take as an article of faith that what shows up in our present Canon belongs in the Canon.

However, having a sentence included in the Canon does not mean it should be taken as completely prescriptive 100% of the time prime facie.  When we have letters, we have to realize that a) letters are very different beasts than Gospels, Apocalypses, etc. and b) there are many different types of letters out there, each meant to be read in a particular way. 

With this in mind I have been pondering how we are to read the Pauline letters.  If we do straight theology from them, we might (but we might not) be missing something…I can’t think of any examples in the specific (and I will have my mind back early next week).

Any thoughts?

1. or people writing in Paul’s name [↩]

I have just finished reading a pair of books engaging in the New Perspective on Paul debate and dealing with justification. The books presented a middle ground that I am still trying to put my mind around. I like what was said in the two books but I need to read them again to make sure I have understood them, and do some more checking upon their exegeses. But here are some questions that came to mind from reading these books.

1.) What impact does 1 Kings 8:32 and Psalm 82:1-3 and each usage of sdq (LXX: dikaiow) on how we are to understand justification (cf. Luke 18:1-8 and the woman crying out for vengeance)? In each case sdq isn’t merely a declaration of a person being righteous but that I AM in 1 Kings 8 is being asked to act in accordance with his declaration, as I AM commands the “gods” to vindicate, both to declare the poor and afflicted to be in the right and to act on their behalf. How does this relate to Paul, specifically, and the NT as a whole, the the discussion of justification?

2.) What role does the resurrection of Christ play in justification? In Acts 13:32-29, Paul links justification and forgiveness of sins to the resurrection of Christ. In Romans 4:25 Paul links our justification explicitly to Jesus’ resurrection, not to mention defining the gospel in terms of Jesus resurrection (Romans 1:2-5; Romans 10:9-10). To further complicate matters, 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 1 Timothy 3:16 speaks of justification not only in terms of resurrection but also in terms of the Spirit.

3.) Nowhere in the NT is it stated that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the one who believes. We are righteous “in Christ” (e.g. Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet one cannot deny that the NT utilizes “imputation” language (e.g. Romans 4:4-8) in reference to justification. How does imputation and union with Christ work together?

4.) Romans 1:16 is Paul’s declaration of him being unashamed of the gospel. In Romans 1:16-18, Paul uses γὰρ three times to introduce a new phrase or idea. In Romans 1:16 it says that the gospel is the power of God for salvation. In Romans 1:17 it appears that Paul is using γὰρ to say that the gospel reveals (ἀποκαλύπτεται) God’s righteousness from faith to faith and then cites Habakkuk 2:4 in support of his claim. Then in Romans 1:18 is Paul using γὰρ in the same way as in Romans 1:16-17? The parallel between Romans 1:17 and 1:18 in the use of ἀποκαλύπτεται is striking. Does God reveal his wrath against unrighteousness in the same gospel that reveals God’s righteousness and that is God’s power to save? How does this change one’s understanding of the gospel and justification and salvation if the answer to this question is an affirmative answer? Is there any change to Protestant position if the answer is in the negative?