God, Science, Sex, Gender – An Interdisciplinary Approach to Christian Ethics, Interaction (3)

September 1st, 2010 View Comments

Click to Order

This will be a continuing dialogue as I read through this book. (Part 1 and Part 2)

The final section, Sexual Diversity and Christian Moral Theology, attempts to draw together theological reflection from the preceding essays, concluding with a commentary on the Ethiopian Eunuch as well as a conclusion which neatly summarizes the discussion thus far. With the breakthroughs in the second section, the third section especially Fennell’s contribution, seemed to be the back end of the peak, but that is, perhaps, purposed.

Stephen J. Pope‘s essay takes Roughgarden, Grande and other contributors plays them off one another while engaging the sexual ethics espoused by Pope John Paul II while attempting to force the interaction between the late pontiff and Feminist Catholic theologian, Margaret Farley, who he considers as standing ‘within the Catholic Christian tradition’ but ‘represents a signification modification of it.’ They are posed in opposition to one another, but their arguments are developed in such a way as to give merit and flesh to each one of their points. Reading the essay seems to be a give and take between Farley and the late pontiff in such a way, as if the reader was in the room with the two. Pope focuses on love as the Christian ethic missing from these debates and once again returns to the what McCarthy pointed out, that sexuality and gender, the consummate ‘other’, as a means to render hospitality.

The only essay to not fit into the book is Frank Fennell‘s work on Hopkins’s “Pied Beauty.” While fellow professor of literature, Pamela L. Caughie’s essay contributed to the overall understanding of how ‘the clothes make the man’ mentality, Fennell’s take is simply to focus on a poem, which concerns diversity, but adds nothing that I can see to the ultimate conservation. This is not the case for Susan Ross’ essay about the diversity of views when one ‘tweaks’ the image of Christ on the Cross. This is an essay which must be read to be enjoyed, and may be a subject of later reflection by myself, but in it, Ross tackles the “Bridgegroom-Bride” theological metaphor in recent Roman Catholic theology, seemingly ignoring the history of such a metaphor, even pre-Christian history. Her’s is not merely about depictions of that metaphor in art, or even the Crucifixion in art, but the idea that if certain things were reversed in the audience’s mind, they bring about a startling shift in attitudes about women. She gives the example of the art piece of ‘Christa’ a feminine portrayal of Christ which brought about immediate emotional responses from her students. It is an essay not for the weak, but for those wishing to encounter the idea of gender and theology, especially in dealing with ordained clergy or the all-male priesthood.

Roughgarden returns to the work along with an editor of the series, Patricia Beattie Jung, to pen a commentary of sorts on Acts 8, trying to force the story of the Eunuch into a gender-bending tale of early Christian gender-fluidity. In attempting to ‘retrieve’ for their discussion Acts 8, they fall into the trap so many have before, of making the Scriptures match up to their viewpoints as well as demanding that Scripture answers to science. Very little attention is paid to actual biblical studies, instead jumping off cliffs where other authors only looked over. The highlight of the essay is the solidly packed reinterpretation of patristics in which they bring in both old and new arguments that gender roles inside the early Church were not as strict as many have them now, although I think they go just far enough in some areas to raise a few eyebrows.

In the conclusion, Aana Marie Vigen, begins by defining Christians ethics as something profound -

Christian social ethics, is never content merely with asking “Who am I?” It always addresses the question of: “Who ought I be?”

Going on, she ask, in relation to the community “Who are we and who ought we to become?” These questions shape Vigen’s conclusion as well as provide an overarching synopsis of the essay’s.

In my full review, I will try to give more time to Vigen’s conclusion. In the end, I think her questions are answered by McCarthy and Pope as well as Calcagno.

Mark’s Line in the Sand to Vespasian

September 1st, 2010 View Comments

The idea has stayed with me for a while, ever since reading Adam Winn’s book, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, in which he postulates that Mark’s Gospel was written in such away as to counter Vespasian’s claim to the Messiahship of Israel. In part of his work, he attributes Mark’s introduction to the notion that Mark was setting up Christ as the very thing that Vespasian claimed for himself, that Christ was to be seen as the true object while Vespasian the pretender. (I’m sure that this went over well with the Roman cult). Winn does make a convincing argument about the political overtones of Mark’s telling of the story of Christ, but he while he connects ‘Son of God’ in the first verse and other miracles found throughout the work as challenges to Vespasian, I believe that he misses out on Mark’s opening line,

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

‘Gospel’ is used infrequently in Matthew and Luke and never in John, and where the synoptics use it, they generally are found among the ‘shared’ material. But, Mark is alone in starting his treatise by announcing that his work is a Gospel about Christ. This Gospel, the Gospel of the Kingdom, is about the Messiah, the Son of God, things which Vespasian claimed that he was. But, it is εὐαγγελίου which interests me.

According to the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, during Greco-Roman times,  εὐαγγελίου was

used originally with reference to victory in battle. It was employed in two connections: (I) to designate the actual good news of victory and its conse­quent deliverance, and (2) to designate a reward that was given to the messenger who delivered the good news after the announcement had been verified. For the adher­ents of the imperial cult the term acquired religious con­notations as it was employed in reference to the birth, power, and pronouncements of the emperor-god.

It would seem then, if Winn is correct that ‘Son of God’ and ‘Christ’ is presented first as a witness against the Roman usurper, I would believe that εὐαγγελίου stands as well as a monument for the victory which Christ won, one in which not even Vespasian could mimic. Mark is stating that regardless of what Vespasian has accomplished or even promises to accomplish, Christ has already issued His own victory declaration.

God, Science, Sex, Gender – An Interdisciplinary Approach to Christian Ethics (Interaction: 2)

August 24th, 2010 View Comments

Click to Order

This will be a continuing dialogue as I read through this book. (Part 1)

The second series of essays, classified under the heading of Reflecting on Human Sexual Diversity, provide a series of entries from evolutionary biologists who disagree with Darwin on sexual selection and one who does not disagree. This series also includes theologians grappling with recent Vatican documents giving theological treatments to them as well as important Scriptural texts used to justify the differentiation of genders. The strength of this series, so far, has been the diversity in approaches, mixing not only disciplines but also trying to have a parallel discussion with science and religion without making one bow to the other.

The first two essays, the first by Joan Roughgarden and the second by Terry Grande and Joel Brown (with Robin Colburn), are complimentary to one another with both challenging traditional Darwinist understandings of sexuality in nature. Far from the usual role applied to procreation by Darwinist science, such as sexual selection for the security of the species, Roughgarden postulates that more often in nature than not, sexual selection is made more for social infrastructure, providing for intimate bonds which prevent the dissolution of society. For Roughgarden, homosexuality then ‘is not against nature, it is an adaptive part of nature.’ (103). Here theories are hardly met with applause by the majority of evolutionary scientists who still follow Darwin’s thoughts on sexual selection in nature. Grande and Brown take Roughgarden’s hypothesis and further it by suggesting that humanity, especially sexuality, may be evolving because we are ‘now operating in environments and social circumstances for which they neither evolved nor were adapted in a Darwinian sense.’ (p106). It is, they rightly postulate, an environment (culture, society, etc…) that we have manufactured for ourselves, which has disconnected us from what has gone before. Of course, neither focus on the history of homosexuality and sexual uses in previous societies but they are approaching it from a scientific angle and in the end both determine that science must stand as a counter to ‘Christian traditions’ in their claim of ‘timeless and ordained model(se) of human sexual behavior.’ (p121).

The essays written by Pamela L. Caughie (“Passing” and Identity: A Literary Perspective on Gender and Sexual Diversity) and James Calcagno ( Monogamy and Sexual diversity in Primate: Can Evolutionary Biology Contribute to Christian Sexual Ethics?) are two of the most rewarding of the series, especially from a non-theological standpoint. Caughie delves deep into the making of the person, whether male or female, with social contributions. Using Michael Foucault‘s work with Herculine Barbin as well as the example of Virgina Wolfe, Caughie draws the implications of the ideal of a male and female only gender network, noting that there are medical examples to the contrary and they aren’t new. Further, while her stances hardly contribute to the theological understandings of such things, she encourages her audience to read past the rhetoric of gender ‘to the meaningful content beneath’ (p152) of the person. But using examples of literature which reflect ‘real life’ I believe that more should take note of her point.

Calcagno, in the tenth essay, writes, much to the chagrin of Roughgarden, I am sure, in support of Darwin’s natural selection theories. All the while noting the diverse sexual practices in primates and their social connections. He throws some heavy questions at both sides in the debate in noting that monogamy is not natural, but rather the perverse norm in most mammals, numbering about 3%. Of course, in the 900 human cultures survived by Murdock, only 16% of them were considered monogamous (p163). He also notes that the more financial independent the genders are, the less likely monogamy is in the culture. He cautions, at the end of his essay, about the use of the animal kingdom to set human ethics (pg164), noting that of all the mammals, humans have the capacity to love, to be faithful, and to be unselfish (p163, citing Fuentes). By far and large, it is clearly the most theological of the scientific essays, in that it sets human above the animal kingdom and focuses the discussion on not what can be excused, but what should be striven for – the ideal.

The remaining two essays in this section deal expressly with theological interaction which developed Roman Catholic discussions. John McCarthy writes on Interpreting the Theology of Creation: Binary Gender in Catholic Thought while Robert Di Vito writes on “In God’s Image” and “Male and Female”: How a Little Punctuation Might Have Helped. While McCarthy writes from the spectrum of the theologian, Di Vito employs biblical studies as well as the linguistic study of Hebrew to stand against the usual Catholic, and in many times, over-arching Christian theological treatment of Genesis 1.27. McCarthy urges that the theology of creation be used in such a way as to make the ‘love your neighbor’ infused with Creation. For him, ‘becoming a neighbor is, theological, participation in the love of God that makes a person.’ (p137). For McCarthy, the ‘other’ becomes a person to be loved inside of the theology of Creation. Di Vito almost takes issued with the theological only position such as McCarthy’s and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Mulieris dignitatem</em>.

In his essay, Di Vito takes aim at the usual interpretation and thus theological understanding of Genesis 1, insisting instead that it be read in such a way that it produces unity of humanity at first. By doing so, he would hearken back to ancient philosophers, but allow as will the Wisdom Christology by later authors, and help to further the conservation on Galatians 3.26-28. His essay is one which is heightened by his ‘discovery’, providing not only insight into the New Creation, but He in whom we have this New Creation. I cannot say more about his essay without giving away the centrality of the argument, but it is one which must be developed later and used in the egalitarian and complimentarian debates which so many are having today.

Regarding gender issues, Di Vito stands as the most enlightening essay while in the arena of sexual diversity, Calcagno comes the closest to providing for Christian ethics in the discussion, all the while supposing that he is only a scientist.

Review of Biblical Literature Newsletter, 21 August 2010

August 21st, 2010 View Comments

Hector Avalos, Sarah Melcher, and Jeremy Schipper, eds.
This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7175
Reviewed by William R. G. Loader

Joseph Blenkinsopp
Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7402
Reviewed by Joshua Schwartz

Roland Boer
Political Myth: On the Use and Abuse of Biblical Themes
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7123
Reviewed by Gilbert Lozano

Roland Boer and Jorunn Økland, eds.
Marxist Feminist Criticism of the Bible
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6678
Reviewed by Michael J. Lakey

Detlev Groddek and Maria Zorman, eds.
Tabularia Hethaeorum: Hethitologische Beiträge: Silvin Kosak zum 65. Geburtstag
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6845
Reviewed by Paul Sanders

Joel S. Kaminsky
Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7662
Reviewed by Hallvard Hagelia

Mosheh Lichtenstein
Moses: Envoy of God, Envoy of His People
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6420
Reviewed by Danny Mathews

Hanne Loland
Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46, and 49
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7372
Reviewed by Claudia D. Bergmann

Robin Routledge
Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7153
Reviewed by Don Collett

C. Kavin Rowe
World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7214
Reviewed by Rubén Dupertuis

Review of Biblical Literature Newsletter, 13 August 2010

August 13th, 2010 View Comments

Steven L. Bridge
Getting the Old Testament: What It Meant to Them, What It Means for Us
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7167
Reviewed by Robert Wallace

Robert R. Cargill
Qumran through (Real) Time: A Virtual Reconstruction of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7241
Reviewed by Eibert Tigchelaar

Frances Flannery, Colleen Shantz, and Rodney A. Werline, eds.
Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6785
Reviewed by David Maas

Greg Schmidt Goering
Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7386
Reviewed by Ibolya Balla

Joel B. Green, ed.
Methods for Luke
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7442
Reviewed by Stephan Witetschek

Bernd Janowski, Bernhard Greiner, and Hermann Lichtenberger, eds.
Opfere deinen Sohn! Das ‘Isaak-Opfer’ in Judentum, Christentum und Islam
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6545
Reviewed by Paul Sanders

Edith Lubetski and Meir Lubetski, eds.
The Book of Esther: A Classified Bibliography
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6926
Reviewed by Mayer I. Gruber

Nathan MacDonald
What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? Diet in Biblical Times
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7068
Reviewed by Raz Kletter

Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard
The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume 2: Introductioni with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7313
Reviewed by Frank H. Polak

Roger E. Van Harn and Brent A. Strawn
Psalms for Preaching and Worship: A Lectionary Commentary
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7174
Reviewed by Hallvard Hagelia

Revelation as Prophecy

August 11th, 2010 View Comments

For some background on my argument here, see this post.

The Book of Revelation is often called, rightly, a prophecy, but far too often does that mean in the minds of most readers, something in the future. Many believe that ‘prophecy’ is always in the future, but I believe that this is a fallacy based on misunderstanding of what prophecy is. Simply, prophecy is not the fore-telling of far distant events, but the inspired message for the audience there and then. It is not a secret code to be worked out by later readers, nor should the genre be ignored, but everything to be understood correctly but be put in its place.

The author clearly denotes that the work is a prophecy in Revelation 1.3 (and several other places), meaning of course, that he is a prophet.

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. NASB

God blesses the one who reads the words of this prophecy to the church, and he blesses all who listen to its message and obey what it says, for the time is near. NLT

Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

It’s that key word, προφητείας, which plagues us and which we must attempt to discover what it actually meant, still means, and not what we subjectively wish it to mean today.

First, I note that in the Septuagint, we see the word used by Tobit (2.6) in reference to the prophet Amos who spoke in his own time about the destruction coming to Israel because of the injustices done to the poor.

Then I remembered the prophecy of Amos, how he said against Bethel, “Your festivals shall be turned into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.” And I wept. (NRSV)

καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς προφητείας Αμως καθὼς εἶπεν στραφήσονται αἱ ἑορταὶ ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ εὐφροσύναι ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον καὶ ἔκλαυσα

Amos wasn’t speaking about Tobit, and Tobit knew that. Instead Tobit fulfilled what Amos had said, then went and did what Amos said. Amos was dead, but Tobit took what Amos said and applied to his own life.

Paul would later use say that gifts were bestowed through prophecy,

Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the council of elders. 1 Timothy 4:14 NRSV

μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου.

In a pseudepigraphical book, prophecy is connected to nothing more that delivering God’s Law or ruling Israel,

And Eupolemus says in a certain ‘Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah,’ that Moses prophesied for forty years, then Joshua the son of Nun [prophesied] for thirty years. [Joshua] lived for one hundred ten years, and set up the holy Tabernacle at Shiloh. Eupolemus Concerning Moses 2:1

Εὐπόλεμος δέ φησιν ἔν τινι Περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας Μωσῆν προφητεῦσαι ἔτη μ· εἶτα Ἰησοῦν, τὸν τοῦ Ναυῆ υἱόν, ἔτη λ· βιῶσαι δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔτη ρι πῆξαί τε τὴν ἱερὰν σκηνὴν ἐν Σιλοῖ.

Philo, in line with the mention above, cites Moses and defines prophecy,

But since there is an infinite variety of both human and divine circumstances which are unknown both to king, and lawgiver, and chief priest, for a man is no less a created and mortal being from having all these offices, or because he is clothed with such a vast and boundless inheritance of honor and happiness, he was also of necessity invested with the gift of prophecy, in order that he might through the providence of God learn all those things which he was unable to comprehend by his own reason; for what the mind is unable to attain to, that prophecy masters. De vita Mosis 2:6

ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ μυρία καὶ βασιλεῖ καὶ νομοθέτῃ καὶ ἀρχιερεῖ τῶν ἀνθρωπείων καὶ θείων ἄδηλα γενητὸς γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ θνητός ἐστιν, εἰ καὶ τοσοῦτον καὶ οὕτως ἄφθονον περιβέβληται κλῆρον εὐπραγιῶν, ἀναγκαίως καὶ προφητείας ἔτυχεν, ἵν᾽ ὅσα μὴ λογισμῷ δύναται καταλαμβάνειν, ταῦτα προνοίᾳ θεοῦ εὕροι· ὧν γὰρ ὁ νοῦς ἀπολείπεται, πρὸς ταῦθ᾽ ἡ προφητεία φθάνει.

Prophecy, so far, has been defined as ruling, law giving, comprehension and bringing representing God’s legal case against Israel. We could boil it down to this, that prophecy and thus prophets are those who claim direct inspiration from God. Rather, a prophet who claims direct inspiration from God issues words (these are prophecies) which he claims are from God, under the inspiration of the Spirit. The notion of inspiration by the breath of God (Spirit) can be derived easily enough from Philo -

And if, indeed, any one assuming the name and appearance of a prophet [Deuteronomy 13:1], appearing to be inspired and possessed by the Holy Spirit, were to seek to lead the people to the worship of those who are accounted gods in the different cities, it would not be fitting for the people to attend to him being deceived by the name of a prophet. For such an one is an impostor and not a prophet, since he has been inventing speeches and oracles full of falsehood, De specialibus legibus 1:315

κἂν μέντοι τις ὄνομα καὶ σχῆμα προφητείας ὑποδύς, ἐνθουσιᾶν καὶ κατέχεσθαι δοκῶν, ἄγῃ πρὸς τὴν τῶν νενομισμένων κατὰ πόλεις θρησκείαν θεῶν, οὐκ ἄξιον προσέχειν ἀπατωμένους ὀνόματι προφήτου· γόης γὰρ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ προφήτης ἐστὶν ὁ τοιοῦτος, ἐπειδὴ ψευδόμενος λόγια καὶ χρησμοὺς ἐπλάσατο.

In Josephus, he notes that the Temple was chosen by Prophecy (Ant. 4.200). In 7.72, David is seen asking the Prophets about the will of God while in 8.418, it is said that by prophecy, people know the will of God and what they should avoid. Still, the sense of the future events is immediate which is echoed in 10.93 when describing Jeremiah’s predictions about what would soon happen. For Josephus, prophecies were meant to be fulfilled quickly (I note Revelation 22.20 here) which in accordance with Deuteronomy 13 would allow for testing of the prophet.

What about the actual meaning of the word?

Friberg -

προφητεία, ας, ἡ prophecy; (1) as the gift (χάρισμα) of inspired speaking granted to believers by the Spirit prophecy, ability to prophesy (RO 12.6); (2) as the utterance of a prophet prophetic words, inspired saying, prophecy (1C 14.6); (3) as a foretelling of future events prediction, prophecy (MT 13.14); (4) as the work of a prophet prophetic activity, prophesying (RV 11.6)

Louw-Nida -

33.460 προφητεία, ας f: an utterance inspired by God – ‘inspired utterance, prophecy.’ καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ‘so that the prophecy of Isaiah comes true in their case’ Mt 13.14; εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται ‘and if there are inspired utterances, they will cease’ 1 Cor 13.8. It is possible that προφητεία in 1 Cor 13.8 refers to the action of producing such inspired utterances rather than to the resulting verbal form of the utterances themselves.

Liddell-Scott -

προφητεία, ἡ, the gift of interpreting the will of the gods, Orac. ap. Luc.
II. in N.T., the gift of expounding scripture, of speaking and preaching.

Thayer -

προφητεία, προφητείας, ἡ (προφητεύω, which see), Hebrew נְבוּאָה, prophecy, i. e. discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events. Used in the N. T. — of the utterances of the O. T. prophets: Matt. 13:14; 2 Pet. 1:20,21 (on this passage see γίνομαι, 5 e. α.); — of the prediction of events relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions pertaining thereto: Rev. 11:6; 22:19; τό πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας, the spirit of prophecy, the divine mind, to which the prophetic faculty is due, Rev. 19:10 ; οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας, Rev. 1:3; 22:7,10,18; — of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called προφῆται (see προφήτης, II. 1 f.): Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10; 13:2; 14:6,22; plural the gifts and utterances of these prophets, 1 Cor. 13:8; 1 Thess. 5:20; — specifically, of the prognostication of those achievements which one set apart to teach the gospel will accomplish for the kingdom of Christ, 1 Tim. 4:14; plural 1:18 (see προάγω, 2 a. and compare the commentaries). ((The Septuagint, Josephus); among native Greek writers used only by Lucian, Alex. 40, 60; (to which add inscriptions (see Liddell and Scott, under the word, I.)).)*

So, the generally agree – it is an inspired speech from a person sent of God to tell about His will. The ‘future’ is generally immediate or better yet, it is generally about the prophet applying the ‘how come’ to the ‘what’s happening now.’ Prophets do not make ‘predictions’ because what they say are to be the words of God, nor do they tell of events thousands of years hence. A prophecy is the words of a prophet which is a person sent by God to tell about the will of God.

Eschatology is a part of Christianity, but I have seriously doubts if Revelation is apart of Eschatology, or at least not in the way we’ve been told to think about Eschatology.

God, Science, Sex, Gender – An Interdisciplinary Approach to Christian Ethics (1)

August 10th, 2010 View Comments

Click to Order

This will be a continuing dialogue as I read through this book.

In what is bound to elicit heated arguments from all sides of the debate, the editors have compiled a series of essays, all connected to each other, delivered in symposium style concerning the ongoing debate in (mainly) the Catholic Church about the roll in which science should play in determining human sexuality ethics. I said Catholic because while this book has at the purpose ‘Christian’ ethics, it is generally written to that of the Catholic ethicist by prominent Catholic ethicists. This is not to say that others should not read and draw from the discussions, but the role of authority may be expressed and defined differently based on the denomination.

The book contains three parts, with the first part comprised of five essays essentially laying the ground work for discussion to come. Beginning with Jon Nilson‘s historical critique on authority in the Catholic Church in which Nilson doesn’t rely upon Tradition, but attempts to correct perceived notions of Papal infallibility and hierarchy. While the history of Papal infallibility may not be known to many, what is even more unknown is the deciding factor in which many of the Cardinals had already vacated the See to return home, leaving the vote easily cast in favor of the sitting Pope’s view. Further, Nilson goes into the loosening of the hierarchical rolls leading upon to Vatican II and what should have emerged from that Council. Detected in his language, is the acceptance of the present system but only as far as history would allow. For him, this insistence into monarchical authority in Rome must be challenged by courageous theologians because,

(F)irst, to remind us all that the whole Church is not yet of one mind on issues of sexuality and, no less important, to give heart to those who have been marginalized in the Church for their sexuality and/or gender who have suffered greatly on account of it.

Nilson’s view on authority is not based in Rome, but in changing trends, a view in which he meets with resistance by Anne E. Figert‘s essay on the disputes between scientific and religious authority.

She brings to bear her sociological background in helping to show several weaknesses in surrendering to the weight of Science that which may in fact be contained in the realm of Religion, especially when both hemispheres tend to be absolute only in public. She deals with Weber and Dawkins, discussing the roll in which Religion figures as an Authority and compares it to the Authority of Science, and rightly notes that challenges to both are ‘more driven by human politics, economics, and power struggles than their claims to the pure pursuit of the truth might suggest.’ Figert describes the current boundary disputes, and just what roll Science plays in the hearts and minds of followers. This is important, especially since she notes a report by Gilbert and Mulkay in 1984 in which it was found that scientists have a different discourse in private. They are much less absolute and often times presented as competent. Figert’s essay serves to remind us of the boundary disputes and that in both areas, human politics are a driving force.

Following this is Fred Kniss who admits that framing the debate on human sexuality in the way it has been has already ‘almost necessarily pitted itself against science.’ Admitting that conflicts, such as the one discussed, are social issues but still sees the need to rely upon Science. In a brief, but powerfully open-ended essay, Kniss never comes fully to determining ‘natural’ and which sphere of authority should decide it, but does present a solid overview of the impacts of the controversy into the arenas of our lives. In what should be a common chapter in most political science text book, Kniss shows the almost hypocritical political and religious spheres in which the individual as moral project is weighed against the locus of authority.

In the final two essays of the first part, Francis J. Catania and Patricia Beattie Jung bring into the discussion Thomas Aquinas (and by virtue, Aristotle). Both present a saintly picture of Aquinas as the example for allowing Science to share, in part, in the realm of Religious Authority, at least when it comes to dictating ethics based on observable fact. Dealing with the subject of ‘human flourishing’ and the changing notion of sexual morality inside the Roman Catholic Church, each author separately builds the case the science has and could benefit theological and ethical discussions. There is, without a doubt, a large change which has taken place in the teachings on sexuality by Rome within the past century, even before Vatican II. Both authors trace this, somewhat, to Thomas Aquinas, and indeed, the ancient writer has seen a resurgence in Catholicism lately, and indeed, Christian scholasticism. How far they could bring him, however, is yet to be determined.

Why? Because while the interdisciplinary approach works well, no one has laid the foundation for ‘natural,’ ‘nature,’ and who decided what is ‘natural’ is still morally, theologically, and ethically ‘good.’ While discussing gender roles, the role in which sexual intimacy plays in marriage, and the current role and future of celibacy, we find historical changes, opposition, and flat out refusal to abide by Roman attitudes to such for the past two millennia (even in Rome herself) but these discussions present a stark difference to the current one on homosexuality. While the others have been, at sometimes, heated, homosexuality and the question of ‘if it is natural, is it divinely sanctioned’ is volatile.

The essays are well written, well supported, and provide a great companion to the discussion on-going in many theological realms.

Egalitarianism and Eschatology in 2nd Clement

August 4th, 2010 View Comments

Click to Order

In today’s world, there are elements of ‘Christianity’ which believe that through violence of some sort, they can bring on the Kingdom of Christ. Whether through the violence of election which mandates conversion or through some terrorist act which consumes the Dome of the Rock, thereby paving the way for a Third Temple, people believe that these things will bring about the Second Coming of Christ. Yet, this dominionism is not prevalent in the earliest Christian writers.

2nd Clement, one of the earliest post-NT sermons, preached that the kingdom of God will come when there is equality…

Let us wait, therefore, hour by hour the kingdom of God with love and righteousness, since we know not the day of God’s appearing. For the Lord Himself, when he was asked by someone when his kingdom was going to come, said:

“When the two shall be one, and the outside like the inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.”

Now, ” the two are one” when we speak the truth among ourselves and there is one soul in two bodies without deception. And “the outside like the inside” he means this: “the inside” signifies the soul, while “the outside” signified the body. There just as your body is visible, so also let your soul be evident in good works. And by “the male with the female, neither male nor female,” he means this: that when a brother sees a sister, he should not think about her as of a female, nor should she think anything about him as of a male. If you do these things, he says, the kingdom of my Father shall come.

The above is from Michael W. Holmes‘s book, noted above, which includes the Apostolic Fathers in both English and Greek. It is a very good translation, which includes notes and cross references to track quotations from the Fathers of the Scriptures.

Holmes, and others I am sure, note that the author is pulling from the Gospel of the Egyptians which is different from the one found at Nag Hammadi, but assumed to be of a different sect of early Christianity which rejected marriage. While that may be the case, we do know that this version of the Gospel was never fully accepted while sayings which may be found in the Egyptians’ Gospel remain. Possibly, that instead of accepting the Gospel of the Egyptians, said Gospel shared a common Oral Tradition of sayings of Christ which are not found in the canonical Gospels. This is not uncommon, even in Canonical sources, in that Paul relayed words of Christ which are not quoted by the Evangelists.

I am not sure that the author is meaning a pure eschatological Kingdom here, but more probably, the full realization of Christ’s Kingdom on earth; however, eschatology plays a part, at least in the end, in that the author throughout the sermon urges his audience to remain ever vigilant in their lives so as to be pure when God appears. How interesting in the debate though, of the role of women, that this early sermon which teaches against separation based on gender was so readily beloved by early Church historians and collectors of valued documents that it was preserved and attached to the traditional successor of Peter.

Christology in 2nd Clement

August 3rd, 2010 View Comments

This is not meant to be a comprehensive survey by any means. In this post, I want to examine the role which Christ play for the community of 2nd Clement.

While reading Michael W. Holmes book, The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edition, I noted that he allows for an even earlier date, or rather, he allows several scholars to speak who date 2nd Clement to the early part of the 2nd century.

Easily seen is the Christology which the speaker puts on to Christ, encouraging his audience to think of Christ as they think of God.

it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God (1:1)

Christology, as we see with Ignatius, is part of the doctrinal discourse, along side that of how a Christian is supposed to live. The speaker doesn’t expressly call Christ God here, but only that people should have for Christ the same high regard which they have for God. In the same passage, he elevates this ‘thought process’ to a saving means, in which the audience is cautioned that thinking little of Him (or belittling Christ, as Holmes translates) should cause the audience to receive little from Christ. This is echoed, slightly in the thirteenth chapter when the author quotes Isaiah 52.5. (If Christ was invested with the Name of God, and was thus seen as God as John seems to written in accordance with other 2nd Temple literature, the author then does have a developed Christology.) Notwithstanding later development, Christ is given a high regard by the author as he attributes to Christ  the giving of light, the father of children, and the salvation from perishing (v4). He goes on to quote Paul (Romans 4.17) when he writes,

For He called us when we were not, and willed that out of nothing we should attain a real existence. (1:8)

In the next chapter, the author quotes various Old Testament passages, attributing the action to God, but seems to then place the onus of the salvaic act on Christ who called out the Gentile people who are now in direct opposition to those who ‘seem to have God (2.3), the Jews. The ancient author has the highest regard for Christ, in that he attributes the actions and duties of God to Him.

In the third and fourth chapter, our author moves into familiar Christological territory, quoting Mark/Matthew in which Christ promises to acknowledge before the Father those who acknowledge Him. At the close of the fourth chapter, however, the author introduces a quote of Christ from an unknown source, when he writes,

the Lord has said, “Even though you were gathered together to Me in My very bosom, yet if you were not to keep My commandments, I would cast you off, and say unto you, Depart from Me; I do not know where you are from, you workers of iniquity.” (4:5)

The author, while he acknowledges Scripture also uses these traditional sayings as well as a ‘prophetic word’ (11.2-4) as sources of thought.

In the fifth chapter, it is the promise of Christ is front and center, in that it is ‘rest in the coming kingdom and eternal life.’ This blessing is mirrored in the sixth chapter when the ancient preach noted that nothing could save the soul from eternal punishment if they didn’t do the will of Christ. For the author, the baptism much be kept undefiled and the works of righteousness sought. This type of view is also seen in 8.2, where the author commends repentance while there is still time, stating that those who have ‘kept the flesh pure and have observed the commandments of the Lord, we will receive eternal life.’ (8.4)

The ninth chapter, like chapter 14, I will reserve for later, especially since it deals with the pre-existence of Christ. I will say, however, that the author views the incarnation of Christ as something important, in that for the author, the flesh mush be kept pure (it is the temple of God, 9.3). For him, since we received our salvation in the flesh we will receive our reward in the flesh. In the fourteenth chapter, however, there is the connection between Christ and the Holy Spirit, where they are one in the same.

The doxology of the sermon is also tinged with Christology -

To the only God invisible, the Father of truth, who sent forth to us the Savior and Prince of incorruption, through whom also He manifested to us the truth and the heavenly life, to Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (20.5)

It is also God sending Christ, returning to the fact that we should think of Christ as we do of God – perhaps because Christ carried the divine Name and Message of Truth which brings eternal life with God.

Acts 9.2, Sicarri, Paul, and ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας

August 2nd, 2010 View Comments

and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. -  Acts 9:2 NASB

The historical situation is that in that culture of the time, women were generally left unmolested in such cases. Wright cites the example that the women in the Gospels were seen at the crucifixion, although they were known to be followers of Christ, while the men feared punitive action. Yet, here Paul is given express permission to tackle the growing Way with brute force, imprisoning both men and women. Why? Wright speculates, citing Kenneth E. Baily, that it was because women in the early leadership positions along side men.

I’ve found it difficult to quickly substantiate Dr. Bailey’s assertions that women weren’t targeted by the opposing side, well, not for death anyway; however, while reading of some Josephus’ account in his Wars (3.300-) I noticed that many times, women and children were simply enslaved or left alone. If this is the case, then targeting women along side of men, especially by Saul of Tarsus wouldn’t be the culture norm.

Except for the Sicarri. They were a terrorist group which quickly shed Jewish blood, even Jonathan the high priest, for impiety or not resisting Roman rule, according to Josephus. They operated in the years before the destruction of the Temple, trying to expunge the Romans from Israel. They had no qualms about killing women and children, of which numbered 700 or so dead when the Sicarri invaded En Geddi. It is interesting, that before Josephus, the word can only be found in connection with the Apostle Paul,

“Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” Acts 21:38

I’ve got to sheepishly wonder if Paul, who obviously had no problem with targeting men and women, was a member of the early Sicarri?

For others who may interested in Sicarri in Josephus, you may wish to purchase this book.

But, if then-Saul of Tarsus was actually targeting women along side of men, then it is possible, given the culture surroundings, that he considering the women as leaders. The cement to this argument comes from the fact that Luke expressly mentioned ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας (men and women) in Acts 9 as well as in Acts 22, as Paul recounts the story.

« Older Entries



  • Reviews:

    I review for Tyndale, Thomas Nelson, Abingdon Press, University of Illinois, IVP-Academic, Westminster John Knox, Baker Publishing, Our Sunday Visitor, Bethany House, Baylor University, Mohr Siebeck, Gorgias Press, Random House, Walter De Gruyter, Bibleworks, and (more to be added). I wish to thank each of these publishers for allowing me to review for them and to my readers for engaging the dialogue.



  • My Amazon.com Wish List





  • my space counter

  • Random Pages

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta