For those of us reading Revelation this week here is a map showing the location of the 7 cities the letter is written to (their names are in yellow with red dots). They are all in modern day Turkey.
Scholar Craig Koester has a neat little website which allows you to tour around each city and see photographs of the archaeological sites. Or you can actually go there with this tour company that specialises in "sacred destinations."
[Map from here, but I copied it here to spare you the crazy stuff.]
I once heard a young woman tell me, "women shouldn't take the initiative in relationships because it was Eve who took the initiative in Eden and caused the fall." I think her point was, not that women shouldn't take the initiative because they were responsble for the fall, but that the fall proved that women were never meant to take the initiative. From there it seems a short step to this kind of thinking,
It is fair to say that there are a number of women in Genesis who take the initiative with negative results and in ways that disobey God. Apart from Eve, the examples of Sarai telling Abram to impregnate Hagar (Gen 16) and Potiphar's wife attempting to seduce Joseph (Gen 39) come to mind. However, in none of those examples is there any indication that the problem with their actions is that they are women. In each instance those actions are simply expressions of sin regardless of gender. Adam, Abram, and Potiphar, hardly serve as shining examples of ethical initiative taking in those narratives either.
On the other hand, in two significant narrative sections women take the initiative in highly unorthodox ways, and yet, within the world view of Genesis, are richly rewarded. The first story is that of Lot's daughters, to our modern minds a tale of depravity and incest, but in Genesis actually the story of how Lot's daughters take the initiative when their father is too scared and useless to find them husbands and ensure the survival of the family by nay means necessary. Their reward is that their offspring become two great nations, the Moabites and the Ammonites, the women are vindicated by history (Gen 19:30-38). The second story is of Judah and Tamar, where in a scarcely less sordid episode Judah's daughter in law has to disguise herself as a prostitute in order to seduce him and preserve the family line. She is rewarded by success and the recognition that her actions were righteous (Gen 38, not to mention Matt 1:3). None of this is to suggest that women's place is only in preserving the family line, i.e. breeding, but in Genesis that is pretty much all anyone, male or female, cares about. The point is that women take the initiative throughout Genesis, sometimes it results in bad and sometimes in good, just like it does with the men.
If anything, Gen 3 actually shows the Eve taking some responsibilty and admitting being deceived (3:13), whereas Adam just tries to blame both Eve and God for putting Eve in the garden with him (3:12).
[This is the conclusion from my thesis which I just submitted for marking yesterday, remember this is not a bunch of unfounded assertions but the conclusion to 40,000 words of argument worked out over a year and a half of research. Not that that means you should agree with them, but remember this is just a teaser, before I publish the whole thing online. I'm interested in your reactions, especially which areas you would like me to share/argue in more detail on the blog, but if you spot a typo don't tell me, it's too late!PS the cartoon is not in the actual thesis, but seemed appropriate for my premature moment of triumph. :-)]
This study has examined the notorious crux that is 1 Cor 6:12-20. It has arrived at a reading which traces a clear and logical progression of thought through the pericope that is fully coherent with Pauline thought on Christian freedom elsewhere. Attentiveness to the images and metaphors underlying Paul’s logic, and a desire to let them all influence the reading without privileging one over another, has exposed the intricacy and the consistency of Paul’s argument. Even though some statements might appear un-Pauline in isolation, within the context of the pericope every phrase operates as Paul’s own words. It is, consequently, unnecessary to attribute any of the phrases therein to the Corinthians as slogans.
Within the pericope the citation of Gen 2:24 (1 Cor 6:16) functions as a central explanatory concept, both for the arguments preceding and the statements to follow. For Paul, the sexual act constitutes an “oath-sign” which creates “one flesh” from the joining of the two bodies. Πορνεία results in the removal of the believer from union with Christ, because union with Christ excludes such behaviour. The believer unwittingly makes the prostitute his wife but treats her as if she was as insignificant as food, there only to serve an appetite. The statement of 1 Cor 6:18, that only fornication is a sin against/into the σῶμα, is to be understood as hyperbolic, indicative of the unique seriousness with which Paul views πορνεία, rather than an absolute statement. The pericope’s emphasis on σῶμα is indicative of a wider concern within 1 Corinthians to increase the Corinthians’ esteem for the body. For Paul, the σῶμα is not a discrete part of the human being but an integral aspect, one that is essential both for glorifying God in this life and for the believer’s future hope. Paul’s argument reveals how he understands the believer’s σῶμα relates to God as creator and eschatological judge, to Christ as “husband” and redeemer, and to the indwelling Holy Spirit. When this argument is examined it is found to be theological in both form and content, constituting a dinstinctive Trinitarian argument against πορνεία, which stands in stark contrast to 1st cent. Jewish or Greek treatments of the same subject.
Ultimately, the study of 1 Cor 6:12-20 yields rich insight into Paul’s understanding of and response to fornication. It shows how Paul interpreted the received tradition of Jesus’ life and teaching to formulate and apply a Christian ethic in Corinth, a place removed geographically and culturally from Palestine of the same era. It is an ethic that is radically opposed to an anti-somatic spirituality or to traditional notions of uncleanness and defilement. It is also an ethic rooted in religious experience. It demands that the believers situate their bodies in a matrix of relationships with God, Christ and Spirit, and also with the prostitute they seek to use for their own gratification. Only when the Christian is attentive to their relationships with God, Christ, Spirit, and the human other can they truly exercise their Christ bought freedom as freedom from domination and as freedom for the good.
A little while ago I posted a plea for doubtful preaching, a sermon from Sam Wells of Duke University, I want to know Christ, available on itunesU, is a good example of such and from a passage we normally associate with faith bravado rather than doubt. (Although he speaks far too slowly and goes on for too long - but at least his English is properly accented!)
Thoughts and prayers go out to those in Christchurch who would have been rudely awakened last night by a massive earthquake and are now without power, water and sewerage. Thankfully, it looks like noone is seriously hurt at this stage. Civil defence have been reminding people to check on their neighbours' safety and well being. Power should be back for most people today and water and sewerage in a few days. Meanwhile tankers will be bringing water to collection points by the end of the day.
Just spare a thought for the victims of the smaller Haitian earthquake where hundreds of thousands are dead and the infrastructure is still not back. It is the power of poverty, not the richter scale that determines how likely you are to die in an earthquake.
Meanwhile I await with trepidation the insane geological interpretations of NZ's resident religious nutters.
Today I have printed off my thesis for submission and spiral bound it, I feel giddy.
Today I also entered the illustrious ranks of the Biblioblog top 50 at no.33, making me even giddier.
(and yes Jim you are still #1, but Jesus is #1 in my heart)
A recreation of a S.M. Lockridge sermon by an actor, which starts with a genius meditation on creation ex nihilo (out from nothing). Poetry, theology and preaching, a beautiful combination.
When I deny inerrancy I am not necessarily denying anything many inerrantists believe. It may be, and I think is the case, that I am only denying that the word “inerrancy” is the most helpful or accurate term for what they and I believe in common.
Go here for the full article, well worth a read, HT Chris T.
Gerald Hiestand a fellow of the Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theologywrites, regarding his book Raising Purity, "As a pastor striving to write robust eccleisal theology, a book on dating seems a bit off topic." I have a review copy waiting on my desk, so I can't tell you if it is any good or not yet, stay tuned. However, his story rang bells for me, because my thesis on Paul's approach to prostitution in 1 Cor 6:12-20, where I had to spend a whole year thinking about sex in the ancient world (among other things), started as an examination of Paul's use of the "body of Christ" as a metaphor for the church. My entire 40,000 word masters thesis is in fact a (necessary) digression before I could approach the topic I was really interested in. So why is there such a connection between sexual ethics and ecclesiology, and should it be so surprising? Some ideas:
Being God's people means being holy to/for God, appropriate sexual conduct has always been one of the ways of maintaining that holiness
Being God's people involves us in a complex network of relationships, as with all human relationships, sexual conduct must be regulated in order to keep those relationships in harmony
Being God's people makes us a diaspora in the world, to maintain our unique identity in the world means resisting conformity to the world's patterns in all areas of life, including sexuality
Especially in light of our increasingly permissive society God's people stand in need of a distinctive, gospel centred and persuasive sexual ethics that works not as a barrier to but as an apologia for the church
The church's public image (protestant and catholic) has been destroyed in recent decades by sexual scandal, there is an urgent need to get our house in order if we are to have a credible moral witness
The "gay" debate is dividing churches and yet most pastors cannot give a properly theological rationale for either position, the debate is currently characterised by people not listening to each other, anyone who cares about the church needs to be engaged in this
