Theology for the Masses

One of the things about the Christmas narratives in Matthew and Luke that has always baffled me has been the fulfillment passages where Matthew will say that event X fulfills prophecy A. But when I read prophecy A in its OT context it doesn’t make any sense. What Matthew records as the fulfillment isn’t what is being promised by the prophet. Last Christmas I covered Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 (see Part 1 and Part 2). This Christmas I want to cover Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18. continue reading…

I present to you McNaughton Fine Art’s One Nation Under God.   Yes, some people still think we were and are the new israel a shining city upon a hill.  If you click though, be sure to read the artist’s interpretations.  (They’ll make you curse.)  For an interpretation of the interpretation, see Greg Boyd’s commentary on the painting.

Thanks to JR via Tom.

P.S. I am totally not reading Resident Aliens this week or anything.

Yes.  Some people still think we were and are the new israel a shining city upon a hill.

In this post I want to move to a text that many contemporary exegetes and theologians have really disappointed me when they interpret Paul here, namely 2 Corinthians 5:21. In this post We’ll look at this text and how Isaiah 53:11 impacts the text and how we should understand Paul here in light of it.

Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul here is speaking of God’s new creation that has come into effect through the reconciling work of Jesus Christ. Paul speaks of being Christ’s ambassador, pleading with the world to be reconciled to God. He is the means by which God appeals to the fallen and sinful world to come back to God and participate in the new creation. In reconciling the world to himself, God does not count their sins against them because, employing a traditional formula, the innocent Christ has become sin for our sake so that in him we can become God’s righteousness.

Now let us note the parallel between Isaiah 53:11 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. In Isaiah 53:11, the innocent Servant was wounded and crushed for Israel’s iniquities and rebellious deeds. After the Servant suffered, he is resurrected the Righteous One and as a result the many are justified–restored to proper covenant relationship with I AM.

continue reading…

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…

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…

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. [↩]

Paul once wrote to a church in a city in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) called Colosse. In that letter he said, about I AM and Jesus,

[God] delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven (Colossians 1:13-20 NET).

In Jesus I AM has brought peace, shalom, back to his creation. Jesus has constituted a kingdom through which I AM returns peace by his death, burial and resurrection. The question that we must ask is how does a human experience this peace that Jesus has secured in his kingdom by his death and resurrection? continue reading…

Today’s translated verse of the day is John 3:36:

Greek:

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὅψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.

Verbal Greek:

hah     pisteu-own     ice    ton    eh-ksei    zow-ayn,     hah     deh     ah-pei-thown     ouk    oh-pseh-tai    zow-ayn,    ahll    hay     hor-gay     τou    the-ou     meh-nei     ehpi     au-tohn.

Literal English:

the one believing into the son has life eternally; but the one disbeliving in the son will not see life, but the wrath of the God remaining upon himself.

Speaking English:

The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who does not believe in the Son will not see life, but instead will see the wrath of God remaining on himself.

What is the word of God?

1. The Bible in a reader’s native language which is faithful in message to the autographs
2. The autographs of biblical texts
3. The message behind texts we consider inspired
4. Jesus
5. Other

I don’t think I’ve detected any rampant Dispensationalism here at Mass Theology. However, here are some thoughts/observations on the White Horse in Revelation 6. As you can tell from my previous posts and this one – I sure do love inner-book word studies. They just seem to clear up so much bad theology.

In Revelation 6:2, when the Lamb who was slain unfastens the first of 7 seals, a white horse comes forth carrying a rider who holds a bow, but no arrows. This rider is given a crown and rides out as a conqueror to conquer. Dispensationalists often interpret this rider to be the anti-Christ – the eschatological one who will come and dupe the world into following him. He fools them by bringing peace (hence no arrows), and for 3.5 years is a peaceful chap until something snaps in him and he goes berserk in a cosmic sort of way.

Contrary to this popular interpretation, though, this figure in chapter 6 is hardly some eschatological anti-messiah. This figure really is the actual Messiah, Jesus Christ. He comes forth to conquer, but does not do so with violence – again, the lack of arrows in his bow.

This fact of the crucified, peacemaking Jesus being the figure represented as riding a white horse is supported by simple word studies in the passage. And here’s where I will spend the rest of my time.

First, the Gk. word for white (λευκὀς) only, only, only occurs in reference to Jesus, God, or the faithful followers of Jesus in John’s apocalypse. White is the color of righteous triumph, the color of those who have overcome, the color of the One who delivers the revelation of God. In fact, in 19:11, another (probably the same) white horse comes out with a rider on it who is explicitly shown to be Jesus – the One called Faithful and True. Now, John’s imagery is often difficult to interpret, but I seriously doubt he would put both Jesus and the anti-Christ on the same white horse (or even two horses that came from the same mother). This color is strictly reserved for the righteous and the Righteous One, not the world or Babylon.

Second, the crown this rider receives is the Gk. word (στέφανη) employed only, only, only in reference to the believers and Christ in Revelation. The Beast and other antagonists in Revelation sport a different crown altogether – a completely different Gk. word. The one time an antagonist does wear this righteous crown, Revelation says it is “like a στέφανη of gold” (ὥ στέφανοι χρυσοί ), not an actual στεφανόη. That is, this is a fake στέφανοη.

Third, the Gk. word for conquer (νικών) – from which we get the word “Nike” – is employed only, only, only in relation to Jesus and the saints who faithfully followed him. There are 2 exceptions to this in Revelation, but the overwhelming evidence points to the use I have mentioned here. Furthermore, in the previous chapter – the immediate context, that is – (5:5) the imagery directly pointed to Jesus being the conqueror. John expects his readers to still have that imagery in their mind when they come to this horse.

Fourth, I would look at the bow. Dispensationalists often say that the anti-Christ will conquer with peace, but unfortunately miss that Jesus has already conquered with peace. Jesus brings peace, not through a sword, not through military might, but through being the Lamb that was slain. They got the peace right – they just gave it to the wrong person.

Finally, offering an argument from silence, I would also note that the word “anti-Christ” not only never occurs in this passage, but never occurs outside the books of 2 & 3 John. And there the anti-Christ’s were among the people – they were not some eschatological figure waiting to deceive the world – the deception is occurring now!

Ok, more later, but for now, let me know what you think – especially you Dispensationalists out there in Mass Theology land. Why must this figure be the anti-Christ? In the end, I think the evidence I have provided here is overwhelming, but I’m up for someone making an attempt….(I say with a challenging wink and sly smile).

Should Christians condemn sin in non-believers?

I am not talking about calling out sins within the Church, but outside the Church.

kata ta biblia: When “new wine” is not “new wine” Acts 2 vs. Luke 5

The commentator says something to the effect of “The astute reader will notice that Jesus used these very same words back in Luke 5:33-39.” Thats the passage about “new wine” needing to go into “new wineskins.” The commentator says that it is a deliberate allusion by Luke to say that they are filled with the “new wine” of the gospel. I thought: “Wow, thats cool. Thatd be a great point.” But upon closer inspection, I noticed that they are not the same words in Greek The word in Acts 2:13 is γλεῦκος while in Luke 5, two words are used: ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος. Both are translated as “new wine” in many English translations. Neat symbolism, but its not truly in the text.

What do you make of Acts 2:13 vs Luke 5:33-39?