Is Adam Israel?

 

[pic from here]

I know a number of people who read this blog are concerned how to understand the fall if theistic evolution is accepted.  Peter Enns offers here one suggestion for a way forward [HT Mike].  Very, very, interesting stuff.  Enns is planning to follow up by looking at Paul's understanding of Adam.  One idea I have for a project after I finish my MTh is to do a study of how Gen 1 and Gen 2-3 are treated in Second Temple Judaism as an attempt to understand why Paul uses Gen 2-3 so much but never goes near the theologically fertile ground of Gen 1 (unlike the gospel of John for instance).  Or am I wrong about that?  Any thoughts?

Barnabas Fund Headlines for March

IRAN - SENIOR CHURCH LEADER ARRESTED
TURKMENISTAN - CHRISTIANS ENDURE RAIDS AT BIRTHDAY PARTY AND SERVICES
PAKISTAN - CHURCH DAMAGED IN ROCKET BLAST
INDIA - CHRISTIANS ARRESTED FOLLOWING DISPUTE WITH HINDU EXTREMISTS
INDONESIA - CHURCH ARSON THREATENS COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN PADANG LAWAS
UZBEKISTAN - CHRISTIANS ARRESTED DURING PRIVATE PRAYER MEETING
NIGERIA - MOB DIVERTS ANGER TOWARDS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
IRAQ - ACCELERATING VIOLENCE AGAINST CHRISTIANS

get the full stories here

Faith in or of Jesus?

The subjective/objective genetive debate has kicked off again recently as Steve responds (here, then here) to Loren.  Independent of that conversation James Gregory reviews two articles from a rather tasty looking book on the subject.

The debate simply centres around an ambiguity in the Greek when Paul talks about the "faith (of) Christ" it is not clear (purely in terms of grammar) whether he means Christ is the object of that faith, i.e. that he is the one in whom we have faith, or that he is the subject of the faith, i.e. he is the one who has shown faith(fulness).  Loren thinks the objective reading is nonsense, and Steve disagrees.  James Gregory finds the objective reading presented better in the book he reviews, but I suspect that he might feel the subjective reading would be a stronger case if argued rightly.

Because grammatical indicators cannot solve the problem, it has to be solved by exegesis.  Which is fun but time consuming.  And that is my excuse for not having an opinion on the matter yet.  One interesting idea that comes through in the review is the possibility that Paul uses a "plenary genitive," i.e. at that he intends both meanings.  Probably the key passage to think this one through is Gal 2:15-21.  Read it through with each possibility in mind, keep an open mind, and see which you think makes the most sense in context.

¹⁵"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' ¹⁶know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by (the) faith in/of Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by (the) faith in/of Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.  ¹⁷"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. ¹⁹For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

PS. Steve also has a great post on this subject in Heb 11:1.  I know it is your favourite verse, so check it out!

Destiny not so daft

Once again the amazing power of Destiny Church to grab NZ headlines was demonstrated yesterday.  While I understand the pastor and his congregation for walking out on the money grubbing, one wonders if he mightn't have been better to stay and protest from the inside.  Now another voice for reason has been lost to Destiny.  Notwithstanding, the detail in his Destiny contract as revealed in the article is pretty interesting.

In that contract, it said if they were to withdraw as a pastor they were forbidden to pastor at any other church for two years and their new church could not be less than 50km from a Destiny Church.

The phenomena of big personality pastors ripping churches asunder and then setting up shop 50 metres down the road is sadly not a rare one.  I think all churches should have a contract like this, although the two year clause seems overly punitive.  However the idea of stopping schismatic pastors from setting up a new church in the same town is simply good common sense.  If such a clause was in every ministerial contract the incidence of church splits would drop massively.

Of course in this situation it will be interesting to see if that contract will hold water.  I don't know anything about Andrew Stock but I expect a new church with him as pastor and within 50km of the old one to spring up in the not to distant future. "Bishop" Brian may have to demonstrate the Christian virtue of forgiveness if he does. As Kiwiblogger points out, "Never heard of God having restraint of trade clauses for his servants before."   I think the secular courts might be similarly perplexed if it goes that way.

Two Challenges

Just when I was getting worried that blogging was getting boring I come across two posts that threaten to destabilize the whole world.  How wonderful! 

James looks at the message of Christ from a sci-fi perspective.

And Bruce breaks up with his boyfriend and discovers a victim instead. [HT Ben]

Let me know what you think, better yet, let them know. :-)

Three Views on the Resurrection of the Body

[pic from here]

I'm currently wrestling with 1 Cor 15:35-58.  In this famous passage Paul juxtaposes the bodies we have now with the bodies that we will have at the resurrection.  Because much popular Christianity tends to focus on the "pie in the sky when you die" many of us don't think much about the resurrection and the life that it will entail.  But Christian hope is not actually centred on "getting to heaven" but on the new heavens and new earth which we anticipate at Christ's coming.  However interpretation of the scriptures' most detailed passage on the subject is notoriously difficult and has over the centuries resulted in three schools of thought (citations from Dahl).

1. The "traditional" view is that "the resurrection body is this body restored and improved in a miraculous manner." (p7)  But given the knowledge we now have about the way we are composed of the atoms that have been part of millions of other human beings and the way the body itself contains very little if any "original" material, such a view seem problematic.  However we might find continuity in our bodies it is not through the material that they consist of as this is always changing.

2. The view that has in modern times displaced the traditional view can be called "hetero-somatism" (p8) or if jargon is not your thing different-body-ism.  This simply argues that we are given totally new bodies, but we continue.  We then exist somehow apart from our bodies, we have bodies but we are not bodies and so our essential personality can be transposed into a new vehicle/vessel without any change in who we essentially are.  However if this is Paul's view, then it is hard to see why he places so much emphasis on the body per se in 1 Corinthians.

3.  A third view is that the resurrection body, while not "materially identical" to the original will be "somatically identical." (p10)  For Dahl this is the difference between saying a gold ring is the same object three years later and saying that a human is the same person three years later. (p94)  For a ring to be the same it must contain the same atoms or it will be a new ring, but for a human even though the atoms have changed we still recognise continuity.  "This identity is not simply a matter of having the same 'personality' . . . nor simply a matter of his having the same thoughts, memories, associations, character, etc., but also of having the same 'body' (in the modern sense)." (p94)  [Update, after a rereading of Dahl I realised I had misunderstood him, so I have altered this bit accordingly.  Although he is too dependent on the now very dated JAT Robinson's The Body, I think he is largely on the right track.]

Congratulations. . .

. . . go to Matt and Madelaine Flanagan and Glenn Peoples for getting Kiwi blogging well up in the Biblioblog top 50!  I figure I only have to overtake about 2 million other websites before I can get into the rankings!  Not that I am registered yet.  I'll try and finish my degree before I start trying to notch up the blog.