The big do in the city with 10,000 people is streaming online now.
Well worth a listen to J.Pip, and J. Lenno.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Blog slash real world cross-over
I met Stuart Heath yesterday. We've crossed paths in the blogdom a few times, but this was the first time in person. I liked our brief chat so much that I returned to his stall at Oxygen 11 for a bit more of a convo today.
Part of our discussion involved the ethics of breaking personal trust in recounting private conversation online in blogs. That said, I'm sure Stuart won't mind me posting what I said to him, namely, "I think you're much nicer in person than you come across online".
This made me think two things.
1. I hope I didn't offend you, Stuart.
2. I wonder how I come across based on my blogposts and comments. Tell me if you like, I can take it.
Anyways, then I found out Stuart thought I had coined the nickname for him of, "the gadfly on the rump of institutionalism". This type of name-calling would be rather harsh, and very out of character for me. As I assured Stuart, it was in fact him who had coined the term here, then I liked it so I repeated it.
Hoping to have coffee in a few weeks.
Part of our discussion involved the ethics of breaking personal trust in recounting private conversation online in blogs. That said, I'm sure Stuart won't mind me posting what I said to him, namely, "I think you're much nicer in person than you come across online".
This made me think two things.
1. I hope I didn't offend you, Stuart.
2. I wonder how I come across based on my blogposts and comments. Tell me if you like, I can take it.
Anyways, then I found out Stuart thought I had coined the nickname for him of, "the gadfly on the rump of institutionalism". This type of name-calling would be rather harsh, and very out of character for me. As I assured Stuart, it was in fact him who had coined the term here, then I liked it so I repeated it.
Hoping to have coffee in a few weeks.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Diary of an usher - Day 1
My doctrine of sin comes almost entirely from ushering at Christian conferences. Such rampant selfishness. But I must admit, ushering today at Oxygen 11 (the conference for full-time ministry workers with 2220 delegates), a little bit of my hope in humanity has been restored. Okay, not that much, because we mainly let people sit where they wanted, but I felt a lot more joy coming from people following my instructions this time, compared with Engage last year. Perhaps it's coming from John Piper's message actually getting through?
Anyways, the main request today was for people who had left seats in the middle of rows, to move over and fill the gaps to leave the empty seats at the end of the row rather than in the middle where it is impossible for latecomers to get in. Now I am tempted to get a bit distracted from my overall gripe here by pointing out how hypocritical it is that so many of these pastors would often inwardly groan that their congregations leave massive gaps between themselves and others and don't interact during church meetings typified by their leaving chairs between themselves and others, and yet as soon as these pastors are part of a new congregation themselves they go and do exactly the same thing. But no, I won't go there. Instead I want to highlight that asking people to move over one or two seats would be easy right? Especially amongst a group of gospel-minded ministry folks. And to be honest, people were pretty good. A few bleats were inevitable, to be sure, and oftentimes these were legitimate reasons: I have a sore leg I need to stretch out, I'm a bit overweight and need to hang off the side, I'm old and have to go to the toilet a lot. But one response took the cake.
Sarah asked a couple to move along a few seats, and this is what they said,
"Oh. [cue disappointed look] We were just thanking God that we are here, because we'd been praying that we would get good seats."
Really? Really? You're going to go there? Christian guilt? That somehow we were going against God's will in asking you to move two seats to the right? Were you really praying that you'd get good seats? I mean, I don't want to question your prayer life, but is that really what you were praying before the conference? Well, maybe I was just thanking God that you were about to move two more seats to the right. And what does that mean? Is this some aberration in God's clear revelation that these two prophecies are at polar opposites?
Now, of course, my lovely wife said none of this. But she also isn't easily put-off. She just smiled politely, of course, maintaining eye-contact. And it turns out I'm not the only person who can't resist that understanding smile, because they moved. But I was shocked they tried to pull that one.
Though then again, what's a Christian minister if you can't bend someone to do your will through guilt?
Anyways, the main request today was for people who had left seats in the middle of rows, to move over and fill the gaps to leave the empty seats at the end of the row rather than in the middle where it is impossible for latecomers to get in. Now I am tempted to get a bit distracted from my overall gripe here by pointing out how hypocritical it is that so many of these pastors would often inwardly groan that their congregations leave massive gaps between themselves and others and don't interact during church meetings typified by their leaving chairs between themselves and others, and yet as soon as these pastors are part of a new congregation themselves they go and do exactly the same thing. But no, I won't go there. Instead I want to highlight that asking people to move over one or two seats would be easy right? Especially amongst a group of gospel-minded ministry folks. And to be honest, people were pretty good. A few bleats were inevitable, to be sure, and oftentimes these were legitimate reasons: I have a sore leg I need to stretch out, I'm a bit overweight and need to hang off the side, I'm old and have to go to the toilet a lot. But one response took the cake.
Sarah asked a couple to move along a few seats, and this is what they said,
"Oh. [cue disappointed look] We were just thanking God that we are here, because we'd been praying that we would get good seats."
Really? Really? You're going to go there? Christian guilt? That somehow we were going against God's will in asking you to move two seats to the right? Were you really praying that you'd get good seats? I mean, I don't want to question your prayer life, but is that really what you were praying before the conference? Well, maybe I was just thanking God that you were about to move two more seats to the right. And what does that mean? Is this some aberration in God's clear revelation that these two prophecies are at polar opposites?
Now, of course, my lovely wife said none of this. But she also isn't easily put-off. She just smiled politely, of course, maintaining eye-contact. And it turns out I'm not the only person who can't resist that understanding smile, because they moved. But I was shocked they tried to pull that one.
Though then again, what's a Christian minister if you can't bend someone to do your will through guilt?
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The Church Planters Quandary
Wannabe church planters are often stumped as to where to begin, once they've made the decision to plant a church. Is it just about settling on the best possible name for your church? Or should you begin by launching some kind of teaser website?
It's a big decision.
Turns out that to get a .com.au website you need an ABN.
To get an ABN you need a name.
Crisis over. It's all about the name.
It's a big decision.
Turns out that to get a .com.au website you need an ABN.
To get an ABN you need a name.
Crisis over. It's all about the name.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
There's more to life than deadlines
There's more to life than deadlines.
My last few college assessments have gone in late. That's right. Bible College student: late. Doesn't sound right, does it? Aren't you Bible College students meant to be better than that? Aren't you meant to be motivated? But don't get carried away. It's generally only one day, or at most two, so we're talking a 7% deduction, at worst. But what do you think when I say I've handed in my last few assessments late? Slacker? Overworked? Lazy? Perfectionist? Almost all negative thoughts, I'd imagine.
On the plus side, the most redeeming feature about these late assessments has been that taking the extra day or two has on every occasion ensured at least an 11% improvement on the quality of the work. Plus, I submitted my Old Testament essay a week early and got my worst result at college thus far. But has your opinion of me changed since I've disclosed that I have been habitually late, of late?
Last week I was meeting with some friends to discuss some preliminary prospects for gospel work post-college. I casually brought up at the end of the meeting that I was going home to work on an assessment due the night before, and it was strongly insinuated by my friends that handing in college assessments late was a poor reflection on my organisational skills. Well, fair enough I suppose. That could certainly be the case. And it's worth asking the question. That perhaps if I habitually fail to meet deadlines, this could be a problem in some contexts e.g. when a sermon needs to be prepared each week you can't just take the 7% deduction in grades.
Now, I know what you're thinking. But please, forget that I just compared writing essays for assessment at Bible College to delivering sermons. Now, if you can get past that, let me explain why this symptom of late submission of essays is actually not caused by the disease of poor time management.
I chose to be late. That's right. It was a conscious decision on almost every occasion to submit my essays late.
The most recent was a church history essay. It was due 11:55pm Tuesday. I had been working on it, on and off for about three weeks prior to the due date. But the decision to submit two days late was made not at 11:54pm on the Tuesday, but two days prior, on the Sunday. After a full day at church, including four hours working on the essay in between services, I got home late Sunday night to have a quick dinner with wifey, before keeping on writing. At 11pm wifey said, "Can you please come and tuck me in for bed?" I thought for a moment. Stared at the screen. Yawned. Thought for another moment. And said, "Nah, I'm tired, I'm coming to bed too".
Blink and you may have missed it, but that my friends, was a swift left hook to the time management demons. I choose wife and 7% deduction over a sleepless night and associated grumpiness.
Sure there might still be more questions to ask in terms of how I've been using my time. But there's more to deadlines than life.*
* This reversal of my opening statement sounds profound, but if you ponder too long on it, it doesn't actually make sense.
My last few college assessments have gone in late. That's right. Bible College student: late. Doesn't sound right, does it? Aren't you Bible College students meant to be better than that? Aren't you meant to be motivated? But don't get carried away. It's generally only one day, or at most two, so we're talking a 7% deduction, at worst. But what do you think when I say I've handed in my last few assessments late? Slacker? Overworked? Lazy? Perfectionist? Almost all negative thoughts, I'd imagine.
On the plus side, the most redeeming feature about these late assessments has been that taking the extra day or two has on every occasion ensured at least an 11% improvement on the quality of the work. Plus, I submitted my Old Testament essay a week early and got my worst result at college thus far. But has your opinion of me changed since I've disclosed that I have been habitually late, of late?
Last week I was meeting with some friends to discuss some preliminary prospects for gospel work post-college. I casually brought up at the end of the meeting that I was going home to work on an assessment due the night before, and it was strongly insinuated by my friends that handing in college assessments late was a poor reflection on my organisational skills. Well, fair enough I suppose. That could certainly be the case. And it's worth asking the question. That perhaps if I habitually fail to meet deadlines, this could be a problem in some contexts e.g. when a sermon needs to be prepared each week you can't just take the 7% deduction in grades.
Now, I know what you're thinking. But please, forget that I just compared writing essays for assessment at Bible College to delivering sermons. Now, if you can get past that, let me explain why this symptom of late submission of essays is actually not caused by the disease of poor time management.
I chose to be late. That's right. It was a conscious decision on almost every occasion to submit my essays late.
The most recent was a church history essay. It was due 11:55pm Tuesday. I had been working on it, on and off for about three weeks prior to the due date. But the decision to submit two days late was made not at 11:54pm on the Tuesday, but two days prior, on the Sunday. After a full day at church, including four hours working on the essay in between services, I got home late Sunday night to have a quick dinner with wifey, before keeping on writing. At 11pm wifey said, "Can you please come and tuck me in for bed?" I thought for a moment. Stared at the screen. Yawned. Thought for another moment. And said, "Nah, I'm tired, I'm coming to bed too".
Blink and you may have missed it, but that my friends, was a swift left hook to the time management demons. I choose wife and 7% deduction over a sleepless night and associated grumpiness.
Sure there might still be more questions to ask in terms of how I've been using my time. But there's more to deadlines than life.*
* This reversal of my opening statement sounds profound, but if you ponder too long on it, it doesn't actually make sense.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Annual Moore College Lectures - Wednesday
Paul's Replacement of the Law - "Under the law of Christ"
How common is the replacement theme in Paul in regards to Law and what does he replace it with?
1. The Motif of Substitution
In NT theology replacement is a way of relating the Old and New Testament, often associated with the fourth gospel
But what about the replacement motif in Paul's thought with respect to the law?
2. The Christ-Torah Antithesis
One thing that didn't change for Paul after Damascus was 'Christ' and 'Torah' were mutually exclusive categories.
Gal 2:19-20 “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me”
Notice that it is not laws, but the entire law that is fulfilled. Paul absolves us of that, but is not lawlessness but by walking in love we fulfill the law. It is not though an imperative, do this and you WILL fulfill the law (i.e. bringing in law through the back door).
Jews say do, keep, obey, the law, but rarely say fulfill the law (one occurrence at present). But is taken to mean obey lawS rather than as Paul saying the fulfill law (singular).
Is the perfect tense significant? Rom 13 Rather than "has fulfilled", instead better translated "The one loving the other fulfills the law". That is imperfective aspect. As for heightened proximity, the use of the perfect draws attention.
5. Walk in Newness of Life
"How to walk and please God" (1 Thess 4:1) is typical question for Jews to ask. The OT answer was "walk according to the law" (Lev 18:4; 26:3; 1 Kings 6:12; 2 Kings 10:31; 2 Chron. 6:16; Neh. 10:29-30; Jer. 44:23; Ezek. 5:6-7; 11:12; Pss. 77:10; 89:30; 119:1)
Paul never says that believers in Christ are to walk according to the law. Instead, as replacement he says to walk;
6. The Language of Newness
Implies a contrast with oldness, and sometimes this is explicit.
7. "Circumcision is Nothing" Complements
Not restatement of the moral law, and the best evidence for it is other two uses;
8. In Paul's Own Words
The theme of replacement. What does Paul replace under the law with?
Under the law of Christ, under the law of faith and the law of the Spirit. Having died to the law, Christ lives in us and we live by faith in the Son of God. Above all else, including righteousness under the law, we value knowing Christ Jesus our Lord. We don’t keep the law, but fulfill the law in Christ and through love. We don’t seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit. Instead of the oldness of the letter, we participate in newness of life, the new life of the Spirit, and the one new humanity. What counts is not the law, but faith expressing itself through love, the new creation and keeping the commandments of God.
How common is the replacement theme in Paul in regards to Law and what does he replace it with?
1. The Motif of Substitution
In NT theology replacement is a way of relating the Old and New Testament, often associated with the fourth gospel
- Jesus is new Moses
- Exacts a new Exodus
- Eclipses great Jewish feasts and institutions
- Replaces temple
- ultimate Passover sacrifice
Hebrews also stands out in this regard as it compares Jesus with sacrifice and priesthood.
But what about the replacement motif in Paul's thought with respect to the law?
2. The Christ-Torah Antithesis
One thing that didn't change for Paul after Damascus was 'Christ' and 'Torah' were mutually exclusive categories.
Gal 2:19-20 “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me”
Phil 3:4b-8 “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ”
If once the law held a central place for Paul the Jew, for Paul the Christian that place is occupied by Christ. But why is he so opposed to the Law of Moses (the law as Law).
Gal 2:21 If righteousness came though the law, Christ died for no purpose.
The concern is to get through the law so comprehensively, what place does a holy life play? Doesn't living with the law make you lawless? Doesn't it make you an outlaw? Doesn't repudiation of the law leave license? E.g. Rom 6.
3. Law of Moses Substitutes
- Gal 6:2 “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ (τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ)"
- Rom 3:27–28 “Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith (νόμου πίστεως). For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.”
- Rom 8:1 “For there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”
- 1 Cor 9:21-22 "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) (ἔννομος Χριστοῦ) that I might win those outside the law."
These phrases seem to be coined in contrast to or connection with the Law of Moses
Paul wants to impress Christ, Spirit and Faith on his hearers and he does so in this way.
Does Law of Christ = Law of Moses reconfigured?
Does Law of Christ = Rules of Christ
Does Law of Christ = Example of Christ
When Paul uses these phrases he has the same thing in mind all along.
Gal 6 - Paul does have a place for Christ's teaching in Paul's letters, but not prominent enough to be labelled 'the law of Christ'. Thus doesn't equal rules of Christ.
Earlier in 1 Cor 9 Paul says at some point we'll all be under Christ. There is sense in which we aren't under law and sense in which we are. It's about which law we're under.
In Rom 3, Law of faith is not another reference to Law of Moses as already held opposed in Romans 3:21-26, 28. Paul instead is contrasting two different laws. Law of works is Law of Moses characterised by doing, thus the contrast is between works and faith. The second phrase then is something like "The Rule of Faith".
Rom 8:1 In verse three Paul says Law couldn't justify us, so not simple rephrasing of Law of Moses. The Law of the Spirit is referring to saving work of Christ through the Spirit.
4. Fulfilling the Law
Paul says Christians fulfill the law, but it's not as simple as that.
Gal 5:13–14 “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful natured; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) in keeping this one command: “’Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Rom 8:3–4 “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled (πληρωθῇ) in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Rom 13:8–9 “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled (πεπλήρωκεν) the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Notice that it is not laws, but the entire law that is fulfilled. Paul absolves us of that, but is not lawlessness but by walking in love we fulfill the law. It is not though an imperative, do this and you WILL fulfill the law (i.e. bringing in law through the back door).
Jews say do, keep, obey, the law, but rarely say fulfill the law (one occurrence at present). But is taken to mean obey lawS rather than as Paul saying the fulfill law (singular).
Is the perfect tense significant? Rom 13 Rather than "has fulfilled", instead better translated "The one loving the other fulfills the law". That is imperfective aspect. As for heightened proximity, the use of the perfect draws attention.
5. Walk in Newness of Life
"How to walk and please God" (1 Thess 4:1) is typical question for Jews to ask. The OT answer was "walk according to the law" (Lev 18:4; 26:3; 1 Kings 6:12; 2 Kings 10:31; 2 Chron. 6:16; Neh. 10:29-30; Jer. 44:23; Ezek. 5:6-7; 11:12; Pss. 77:10; 89:30; 119:1)
Paul never says that believers in Christ are to walk according to the law. Instead, as replacement he says to walk;
- not as the Gentiles do (1 Cor 3:3; 2 Cor 10:2; Eph 4:17),
- nor in idleness (1 Thess 4:12), or as enemies of the gospel (Phil 3:18);
- according to or by the Spirit (Rom 8:4; Gal 5:16),
- apostolic example (Phil 3:17), apostolic teaching (2 Thess 3:6) and the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14);
- in Christ (Col 2:6), in love (Rom 14:15; Eph 5:2), in newness of resurrection life (Rom 6:4) and in good works (Eph 2:10);
- as in the day (Rom 13:13), as children of light (Eph 5:15);
- by faith (2 Cor 5:7);
- wisely (Eph 5:15; Col 4:5).
6. The Language of Newness
Implies a contrast with oldness, and sometimes this is explicit.
7. "Circumcision is Nothing" Complements
“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19)
Not restatement of the moral law, and the best evidence for it is other two uses;
“In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:6); “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation” (Gal 6:15).
8. In Paul's Own Words
The theme of replacement. What does Paul replace under the law with?
Under the law of Christ, under the law of faith and the law of the Spirit. Having died to the law, Christ lives in us and we live by faith in the Son of God. Above all else, including righteousness under the law, we value knowing Christ Jesus our Lord. We don’t keep the law, but fulfill the law in Christ and through love. We don’t seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit. Instead of the oldness of the letter, we participate in newness of life, the new life of the Spirit, and the one new humanity. What counts is not the law, but faith expressing itself through love, the new creation and keeping the commandments of God.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Annual Moore College Lectures - Tuesday
Paul and Law: Keeping the Commandments of God - Dr Brian Rosner
Paul's Repudiation of the Law - "Not under the law"
1. The Nature and Extent of Paul's Opposition to the Law
Need to face the negative approach of Paul to the law head on. The kind of statement such as "circumcision is nothing" is not isolated. Does Paul just take issue with nationalistic abuse of the law? Only certain parts? This is all a subset of Paul's relationship to Judaism. Is Paul guilty of the charge of apostasy? (Acts 21) Is he so radical he ceases to be a Jew? Paul didn't abandon the Jews and just go to the Gentiles. Acts gives a very different picture.
Statements against the law found across the Pauline corpus, and say the same things in different ways. For Paul the law is a failed path to life and righteousness. Paul's biggest problem with the law was that it excluded Gentiles.
2. Paul's insistence that Believers are "not under the law"
ὑπο νομον "under the law" occurs eleven times (in eight verses) in Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. This phrase seems to be Paul's coinage. Meaning
a. bound by the demands of the Mosaic law code and subject to its sanctions
b. Gentiles are not and were never "under the law"
c. can have a neutral sense, referring to Jewish identity or negative meaning "under the penalty of sin" and is thus something from which Jews need to be released and something to which being under grace can be favourably contrasted.
1 Cor 9:19-21, Gal 3:10, 3:22, 3:25, 4:2–3 4:4–5, Rom 3:9, 7:14,
There's nothing wrong with keeping law under tradition as long as it's not put on Gentiles and doesn't impede relationship with Christ. Paul happy enough to observe law when living among those who would stumble if not.
Paul did not need to qualify his statement that he was a Jew, but did clarify his statement of "under the law" that he is not under the law (1 Cor 9). As Rom 6:14 under grace
Gal 4:4–5, 1 Cor 9:19–21 seems to say Jews are under the law and Gentiles not. But why do Gentiles need to be freed from the law if they were never under the law as in Rom 6:14?
This has been explained by:
1. Paul is writing from exclusively Jewish perspective. But Rom 6 seems to be talking of both.
2. Paul talks of Gentiles under the law by analogy as they are law to themselves. However, Rom 2 + 4 sees the law as possession of Jews.
3. Paul is generalising unconsciously from what he knows of Jews as if it's applicable to all
But the texts don't actually say Gentiles were under the law. However, to say you aren't something, is not to say you ever were? To say Australia is better than England to an Aussie audience, is not to say that everyone listening has lived in England. As Paul addresses mixed audience, his aim in Rom 6 is to convince them to live holy life through unification to Christ, and so he addresses a customarily Jewish objection to the law that the law gives life (Lev 18:5). The law increases sin. Paul is not reminding them of transference but that the gospel breaks the power of sin. Thus all people are under sin, but Jews are under the law, which is equivalent to be under sin.
This is defending Paul's consistency to being under the law. Could do the same thing with Galatians (Gal 4:21, 5:18). Some want Gentile believers to be under the law but they are 'led by the Spirit' (5:18) which is synonym for grace.
Sometimes 'under the law' means 'under sin'. Gal 3:23–25, 4:5. Oppressive overtones based on the concept of being "under" someone (which can be good or bad).
In Gal 3:10–14 Paul contrasts two paths to life. There are two dominions, "being under the law", and "being led by the Spirit". The law was an impermanent parenthesis in God's purposes. New Perspective says to be part of people of God you don't need to be under law of Moses, and this is true of Paul. But though this sociological element is important for Paul, it is reductionistic to leave it there. This does not exhaust Paul's negation of the law. His quotation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 shows Paul's polemic against the law is about doing and faith as two paths to life. Salvation is by grace through faith, and the way to protect this, is to say we are no longer under law (even though some of us never were). The path to life is not by doing but by faith.
What is the origin of Paul's opposition to being under the law?
1. Paul's calling and conversion
2. Biblical theology of Paul's position as he sees himself fulfilling prophetic expectation. Jer 31:31–33, Ez 36:22–32 and Daniel 9:9–16a, 18b lament that the Mosaic covenant and law have failed due to human sinfulness and declare time has come/will come when people must look to God's mercy and grace alone apart from the law. For Paul these hopes come to fruition in Christ.
Christ has abolished the laws in its commandments and ordinances, and it has been replaced by grace.
3. In Paul's Own Words
How does he refer to not being under the law that might help us?
Rom 2:29, Paul sets up contrast between "lettter" and "Spirit" (Also in Rom 7:6, 2 Cor 3:6). These are only three places Paul refers to the law as "letter". Paul does refer to "letters" in the plural as in 2 Tim 3:15 but when in singular Paul uses "letter" to refer to Law of Moses and thus "letter" refers to "the externality of the law". Some translations take "letter" as "written code" in the three passages above.
Paul uses "letter" as a way of referring to the law as a set of commandments to be obeyed, as a written "legal code". If Jews have the law as "letter" as legal code and written collection of commandments, Christians do not. Not under law as letter.
There are four other terms in Paul's letters that describe the law as a possession of the Jews, but not of Christians:
1. Commandments
Rom 7:7–12
2. Book
Quotation of Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10
3. Decrees
Eph 2:15, Col 2:14 Christians are freed from the law as decrees.
4. Covenant
2 Cor 3:13–14 Whenever old covenant is read, is equivalent of whenever books of Moses are read.
Christians are not under the law as letter, commandments, books, decrees or covenant. Law is not for the righteous (believers), but to condemn the lawless.
Paul's Repudiation of the Law - "Not under the law"
1. The Nature and Extent of Paul's Opposition to the Law
Need to face the negative approach of Paul to the law head on. The kind of statement such as "circumcision is nothing" is not isolated. Does Paul just take issue with nationalistic abuse of the law? Only certain parts? This is all a subset of Paul's relationship to Judaism. Is Paul guilty of the charge of apostasy? (Acts 21) Is he so radical he ceases to be a Jew? Paul didn't abandon the Jews and just go to the Gentiles. Acts gives a very different picture.
Statements against the law found across the Pauline corpus, and say the same things in different ways. For Paul the law is a failed path to life and righteousness. Paul's biggest problem with the law was that it excluded Gentiles.
2. Paul's insistence that Believers are "not under the law"
ὑπο νομον "under the law" occurs eleven times (in eight verses) in Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. This phrase seems to be Paul's coinage. Meaning
a. bound by the demands of the Mosaic law code and subject to its sanctions
b. Gentiles are not and were never "under the law"
c. can have a neutral sense, referring to Jewish identity or negative meaning "under the penalty of sin" and is thus something from which Jews need to be released and something to which being under grace can be favourably contrasted.
1 Cor 9:19-21, Gal 3:10, 3:22, 3:25, 4:2–3 4:4–5, Rom 3:9, 7:14,
There's nothing wrong with keeping law under tradition as long as it's not put on Gentiles and doesn't impede relationship with Christ. Paul happy enough to observe law when living among those who would stumble if not.
Paul did not need to qualify his statement that he was a Jew, but did clarify his statement of "under the law" that he is not under the law (1 Cor 9). As Rom 6:14 under grace
Gal 4:4–5, 1 Cor 9:19–21 seems to say Jews are under the law and Gentiles not. But why do Gentiles need to be freed from the law if they were never under the law as in Rom 6:14?
This has been explained by:
1. Paul is writing from exclusively Jewish perspective. But Rom 6 seems to be talking of both.
2. Paul talks of Gentiles under the law by analogy as they are law to themselves. However, Rom 2 + 4 sees the law as possession of Jews.
3. Paul is generalising unconsciously from what he knows of Jews as if it's applicable to all
But the texts don't actually say Gentiles were under the law. However, to say you aren't something, is not to say you ever were? To say Australia is better than England to an Aussie audience, is not to say that everyone listening has lived in England. As Paul addresses mixed audience, his aim in Rom 6 is to convince them to live holy life through unification to Christ, and so he addresses a customarily Jewish objection to the law that the law gives life (Lev 18:5). The law increases sin. Paul is not reminding them of transference but that the gospel breaks the power of sin. Thus all people are under sin, but Jews are under the law, which is equivalent to be under sin.
This is defending Paul's consistency to being under the law. Could do the same thing with Galatians (Gal 4:21, 5:18). Some want Gentile believers to be under the law but they are 'led by the Spirit' (5:18) which is synonym for grace.
Sometimes 'under the law' means 'under sin'. Gal 3:23–25, 4:5. Oppressive overtones based on the concept of being "under" someone (which can be good or bad).
In Gal 3:10–14 Paul contrasts two paths to life. There are two dominions, "being under the law", and "being led by the Spirit". The law was an impermanent parenthesis in God's purposes. New Perspective says to be part of people of God you don't need to be under law of Moses, and this is true of Paul. But though this sociological element is important for Paul, it is reductionistic to leave it there. This does not exhaust Paul's negation of the law. His quotation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 shows Paul's polemic against the law is about doing and faith as two paths to life. Salvation is by grace through faith, and the way to protect this, is to say we are no longer under law (even though some of us never were). The path to life is not by doing but by faith.
What is the origin of Paul's opposition to being under the law?
1. Paul's calling and conversion
2. Biblical theology of Paul's position as he sees himself fulfilling prophetic expectation. Jer 31:31–33, Ez 36:22–32 and Daniel 9:9–16a, 18b lament that the Mosaic covenant and law have failed due to human sinfulness and declare time has come/will come when people must look to God's mercy and grace alone apart from the law. For Paul these hopes come to fruition in Christ.
Christ has abolished the laws in its commandments and ordinances, and it has been replaced by grace.
3. In Paul's Own Words
How does he refer to not being under the law that might help us?
Rom 2:29, Paul sets up contrast between "lettter" and "Spirit" (Also in Rom 7:6, 2 Cor 3:6). These are only three places Paul refers to the law as "letter". Paul does refer to "letters" in the plural as in 2 Tim 3:15 but when in singular Paul uses "letter" to refer to Law of Moses and thus "letter" refers to "the externality of the law". Some translations take "letter" as "written code" in the three passages above.
Paul uses "letter" as a way of referring to the law as a set of commandments to be obeyed, as a written "legal code". If Jews have the law as "letter" as legal code and written collection of commandments, Christians do not. Not under law as letter.
There are four other terms in Paul's letters that describe the law as a possession of the Jews, but not of Christians:
1. Commandments
Rom 7:7–12
2. Book
Quotation of Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10
3. Decrees
Eph 2:15, Col 2:14 Christians are freed from the law as decrees.
4. Covenant
2 Cor 3:13–14 Whenever old covenant is read, is equivalent of whenever books of Moses are read.
Christians are not under the law as letter, commandments, books, decrees or covenant. Law is not for the righteous (believers), but to condemn the lawless.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Annual Moore College Lectures - Monday
The Puzzle of Paul and the Law – Circumcision is Nothing
1. Make up your mind - Alleged Pauline Inconsistency
Negative critique and positive approval of the law. Paul can say law is holy, just and good, but Christ has abolished it. We uphold the law, but you are not under the law. Was Paul confused? Change his mind? How can Paul believe both sentiments? Some say law has no significance, some stress continuity saying we're under moral law. It is often that people try too easily to harmonise these ideas quickly. There is a tendency to take sides with either Paul or Paul.
2. Complex - but Unavoidable and Critical
This isn't big a-ha moment, but another way of stating what others have said in passing.
3. A Way Forward
1. Look at all the evidence
2. Use Biblical Theology
3. Treat the law as a unity
Paul speaks coherently and passionaately and pushes things as far as he can.
4. Definitions - "the law"
Most treatments of the subject take νομος as legal system in Pentateuh. But Torah or "law" came to denote not some collection of laws, or even the contents of the Sinai covenant, but rather the first five books of the Bible together. That is to call all these books as law because it's collection of laws is difficult because of the amount of narrative.
In terms of referent, νομος is not collection of laws but Law of Moses. e.g. Gal 4:21 "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" One negative and one positive use of the law. The most straightforward explanation is that Paul is referring to the Pentateuch in both cases.
νομος < Torah
Two exceptions?
Rom 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." Is actually quoting Psalms
1 Cor 14:21 "“In the law it is written, ‘By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord." Is actually referring to Isaiah
So occasionally,
νομος > Torah
Possible reasons:
- Paul could be referring to part, for the whole e.g. the law, when he means the law and prophets.
- Rom 3:19 Certainly these are a list of quotations from the Psalms, but earlier in Romans the law of Moses is the judgment for Jews. Thus this is conclusion from all the preceding chapters.
5. A Hermeneutical Solution to the Puzzle
Not which bits, but as what?
For Paul νόμος “is always the same collection of texts, but the import of those texts shifts dramatically in accordance with the hermeneutical perspective at each stage of the unfolding drama.” (Richard B. Hayes)
6. An Initial Sounding – 1 Corinthians 7:19
“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God.”
This verse is often identified as key to the discussion. Big idea of the section is "stay as you are for this is how you serve God." This verse is a very un-Jewish statement. Circumcision is nothing, but you replace it with God's commandments. And yet, Paul seems to be saying observe the laws of Moses. Yet he's just said one of the most important laws is nothing.
This statement comes up twice in other places (Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). The thing that Paul replaces circumcision with is not the law in Gal 5 and 6. It is something different, and thus it is likely 1 Cor 7:19 is doing similar. Thus it is not a paradox but a polemic, the Corinthians then would understand keeping the commands as his own instruction. To back this up, only other time commands is used in 1 Corinthians is 14:37 which refers to what Paul is writing is the Lord's command. Thus it is polemic - Not this, but something else.
Paul thus does three things with the law and each must be fully heard without prejudicing the others:
1. Polemical repudiation
2. Radical replacement
3. Whole-hearted re-appropriation
It is treating the law as legal code, theological motif and source for expounding the gospel and for doing ethics respectively.
Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians
- Repudiation: 7:19 “circumcision is nothing”, 9:20–21 “I am not under the law”
- Replacement: 7:19 “Keeping God’s commands is what counts”, 9:20–21 “I am under the law of Christ”
- Re-appropriation as Prophecy: 8:5–6 Allusion to Deut. 6:4 – Christ the Lord, 15:45 Use of Gen. 2:7 to underscore the universal significance of Christ
- Re-appropriation as Wisdom: 5:13b Words from Deut. quoted to climax the expulsion of the incestuous man, 9:9, 10:11
7. The Pillars of Judaism – Sectarian Strategies
Acts 21:28a “Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place”
And also other evidence such as Qumran community show other sectarian groups.
Paul uses temple language of his own service, and of the body of believers as temple, this is repudiation, replacement and reappropriation. Paul does what you'd expect to of a group that is breaking away. This is not sociological explanation, but there is salvation-historical reasons.
8. Implicit Evidence – What Paul doesn't say
Are there things Paul says could be of Christians to relate to the law that isn't true of Jews. According to his own testimony in Romans 2:17-29, Jews ‘rely on’ the law, ‘boast’ in the law, know God’s will through the law, are educated in the law, have light, knowledge and truth because of the law, are to ‘do’, ‘observe’ and ‘keep’ the law, on occasions ‘transgress’ the law, and possess the law as a ‘written code’. Paul never says that Christians should relate to the laws in any of the ways expected as Jews.
Paul not only omits to say such things, but he usually puts something in their place and sometimes even reverses what Jews customarily said. To feel the full force of the implicit evidence we need to notice omission, substitution and reversal.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
AMCL #1
Past lecturers at AMCL - Packer, Carson, Ovey, F.F. Bruce, Bray + Moore College Faculty.
Tonight is overview, next week Monday–Friday are main lectures.
1. Critical, Complex and Controversial
- Is there a topic more critical, complex and controversial?
- Acts 21:28 Paul said to be teaching against... our law.
- Paul's view of law led in part to the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity.
- The very fabric of Paul's thought unravels unless we get to his understanding of the Christian's relationship to the law.
- Why such a hot topic? Either people think
- a. free gift of salvation compromised or
- b. any motivation to holy life is removed.
- Don't those without the law end up outlaws?
- Scholars agree it is complex.
- “Paul’s views on the law are complex.” (Ben Witherington III)
- “Paul and the law – The subject is complex.” (Donald A. Hagner)
- “Current discussion of Paul’s view of the law … has become extraordinarily complex.” (D.A. Carson)
- “There is nothing quite so complex in Paul’s theology as the role and function which he attributes to the law.” (James D.G. Dunn)
- “There is a general agreement that Paul’s view of the law is a very complex and intricate matter.” (Heikki Räisänen)
- “This is complex.” (N.T. Wright)
2. Alleged Pauline Contradictions
- Lots of questions of interpretation: Is Christ the end of the law in culmination and goal? Are we under laws jurisdiction or just condemnation? Are we under the moral law to keep the 10 commandments? Are the laws to separate Israel or simply laws to uphold?
- Standard positions are well entrenched, we are taking another route.
- Is Paul confused? Change his mind? Or something else going on?
- Paul can call law - moral, just and good
- On other hand law is - enslaving power that brings about death
- Eph 2:15 abolished commandments. Law terminated by Christ (negative) but then Eph 6:1–2 says "children obey parents... this is first commandment. (positive)
- Circumcision doesn't count, but keeping commandments (1 Cor 7:19). But isn't circumcision a commandment? And an important one?
- Should we keep them in terms of observe or keep them in terms of retain.
- Understanding Paul isn't in understanding disparate texts, but synthesising his whole thought. But it's hard to put all the puzzle pieces together with any agreement.
Three prominent views
1. Lutheran - Paul abolished the law and is a counterpoint to the gospel leading us to see ourselves and seek God's mercy and has no ongoing role in Christians life (though Luther himself)
2. Reformed - No place in saving, but once saved you are under moral law to please God
3. New Perspective - The problem of the law for Paul is not about salvation by grace not works, but that it was about excluding Gentiles from Kingdom of God and thus it is Jewish enthno-centrism that he is against the law.
Brian's three stages of exegesis.
1. Yikes
2. Hmmm
3. A-ha!
or if not 3
4. Yeah, right!
Will only get to 2 tonight!
Tit 3:9 'Don't quarrel about the law' makes the discussion of this series uncomfortable. :)
3. Solving the Puzzle
1. Treat the law as a unity
νομος occurs more in Romans than anywhere else. To only look at these texts that mention law by name is to cut Paul off at the knees for example 1 Cor 7:19. It's also important what Paul doesn't say, that you'd expect him to.
2. Look at all the evidence
Some people only study what they think is attributed to each "Paul" thus they study "Pauls and the Law"
Most evangelicals only look at Romans and Galatians and this could be considered "Pau and the Law".
3. Use Biblical Theology
This is biblical theological approach
Inductive from ground up and so we should use Paul's terms which are often absent from the debate. Don't go too quick to synthesies.
Need to treat Paul as a unity (as did Jews in Paul's day).
4. A Hermeneutical Solution
BDAG defines νομος as:
1. Rule or principle
2. Legal system
3. Collection of holy writings.
Most treatments take Law in Paul in this second sense. Though there are evidence of all three across the Scriptures, and Paul takes the Law as a singular whole, and not as singular parts. He not only introduces laws as Law but narrative as Law e.g. Gal 4:2
Not which bits, but as what?
Paul is negative about the law as law, but positive about the law as prophecy and as wisdom.
What is meant by as? In the capacity of / from the perspective of
The Law as Law
- In Romans and Galatians, primarily negative. Believers are not under the law, have been released from the law.
- Paul quotes three OT verses in relation to justification and the law (Hab 2:4, Gen 15:6, Lev 18:5) We rarely look at the third of these. "The one who does these things will live BY them". If you obey the commands you will live according to the Qumran scrolls.
- In both places Paul quotes these texts (Rom 10, Gal 3 ??) righteousness is said to come not through law but through faith. Paul takes Lev to be a summary of the Law as Law. The Law is all about doing and is thus a failed path to life and we don't live up to its commands. Paul takes it as bad news, as it fails to give life.
- 1 Tim 1:8–10 "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless."
- The law used lawfully is not for believers, but for the lawless to effectively condemn them.
- We are not under the law as it is used as the Law to condemn.
- Don't overstate the argument of silence, or relative silence. But what does Paul not say? Or, how would Paul as a Jew be expected to approach the law? Do, observe, keep, obey, not transgress, they possess the law as written code. These are absent from Paul's discussion of Christians and the law. He does say they are to fulfill the law but that is different. In fact, Paul reverses some saying it doesn't lead to life but death.
- Paul conceives of the law as letter that kills, commandments to be obeyed, but these are not for Christians. God does not hold us up to it or throw the book at us.
- Jer 31:31-33, Ez 36:22-32 and Daniel 36:22-32 lament that the Mosaic covenant and law have failed, and must look to God's mercy. This is where Paul's view comes from.
The Law as Prophecy
- This is the first of Paul's positive views of the law. We think of legal category of law, but rarely of prophetic. Gary Millar picks this up in Deuteronomy, as the pessimism of the book is still hopeful in a few places such as Deut 4:30 and one mention of atonement in Deut 32(?).
- Acts 28:23, Rom 1:1-2, Rom 3:21-22, Rom 3:31 is NT referents to Paul having prophetic view of laws. Paul puts the Law and Prophets together.
The Law as Wisdom
- Key motif in Paul's letters. But Deut 4:6 the Law will make you WISE (also Ps 19:7, Ps 119:98, Prov 28:7).
- What does reading Paul and the Law as Wisdom look like? Notices character of God behind the laws, and the moral framework of creation behind the world. The laws appeal to moral reality stitched into creation.
Two examples:
Tithing
- Tithing: Giving 10% is found in law of Moses. Does Paul recommend it to Christians?
- Despite opportunities to do so, he doesn't. Christians are not under the law. But Paul says you should give cheerfully not under compulsion.
- So does Paul think tithing is irrelevant?
- No. 1 Cor 16:2 deliberate and proportional to your income.
- Laws are there to teach us, to make us wise. We learn from them and read them as Scripture, and come to us not as legal demand but as wisdom for living.
Stealing
- Rom 2 - accuses opponents of stealing, Eph 4 - thieves must give up stealing
- Law quoted and thus still has role, but functions as admonition, teaching and instructions (all have wisdom connotations).
- The Law of Moses is transformed as it moves through the Canon, and this view can even be traced through Jewish literature.
5. CONCLUSION
- Paul's letters present negative critique, and positive re-appropriation.
- It's not that far different from how most Christians view it. It has direction to how we live, but not as Law, and we see it as pointing to Christ.
- For students of Paul, the biggest task then is to clarify the extent to which the apostle repudiates then re-appropriates the Law of Moses.
Quick advertisement for the rest of the lectures @ Moore College next week:
- Monday 15/8/11: 10am
- Tuesday 16/8/11: 9am
- Wednesday 17/8/11: 9am
- Thursday 18/8/11: 9am
- Friday 19/8/11: 9am
Trying my hand at live-blogging: The Annual Moore College Lectures... starts now.
Brian Rosner on Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God.
Moore College Online
This is what I've been doing in my spare moments for the past fortnight when I should have been researching my church history assignment.
From 'Helium 2011' a.k.a. The Moore Revue.
With special thanks to everyone who helped bring my idea to life; Jimbo for sparking the idea with a joke about Hebrew and script editing, Laura for access to the real online Greek video, Simon for the beautiful animations, and all the lecturers for agreeing to make fun of themselves.
From 'Helium 2011' a.k.a. The Moore Revue.
With special thanks to everyone who helped bring my idea to life; Jimbo for sparking the idea with a joke about Hebrew and script editing, Laura for access to the real online Greek video, Simon for the beautiful animations, and all the lecturers for agreeing to make fun of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)