Retreating pointers (2)

On my first post about my spiritual retreat, I tried to encourage folk to consider carving out precious time to get away to think and pray alone. We saw that this required actively seeking out opportunities, and choosing a good inspiring location that is basic but not uncomfortable. I tried to emphasise the way in which you prepare your soul for lift off, anticipating that in three days, two days, one day it'll just be you, your soul (to be claimed by you), and the Father, Son and Spirit. I guess it depends how you want to count, but on at least one count it's five! I then attempted to give some ideas for how to prepare practically (and also not over do it). My fifth pointer gave some insights into what the kinds of experiences might be.

There were just two more I had, but the post was already a bit long so I said I'd add those later (and nearly forgot). The sixth point, which ties into the anticipation and preparation phases, is to balance the prayer times with outward focuses. Pray for people you know, situations of suffering, people you find relationally difficult, your family, your work, God's kingdom in your town. I have a lot of work to do in this area. I can spend long periods of time in thought and reflective prayer about me and God, but those prayers bring much needed balance. Some folk I guess might need to re-align the other way as they are so altruistic that they can only think of praying for others at the expense of allowing God's Spirit to shed light on their inner difficulties, bringing wholeness and directly glorifying the Father and the Son.

Finally, I knew before I went that I needed to arrange a couple of meet-ups with people whom I could talk to openly about some of the experiences of the retreat. So much happened for me while away, that I knew I would not be able to relate much. But the idea of meeting two friends the very evening I returned and hearing their question "so how'd it go?" meant that I knew I could not simply surf some experiential wave, "er...yeah, it was very peaceful, it was deep, really good, err....". I needed to know some of the real things I could fall back on once the hum-drum of normal life kicked back in, and also continue the journey.

So: prioritise it, good location, anticipate it, prepare practically, enjoy it, strike a balance and ensure a rapid review.

I hope these pointers are helpful in planning your own retreat soon!

The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus (4)

Here is part 4 of my critical response to The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus.

As something of a first - you can hear this part in audio! Hope it works...
(Music in intro and close is Counting Crows "1492")


Here are the notes:

In the first three posts we have focussed on some of the methodological points which I found problematic in Irons' presentation, which was quality and ordered, focussing on more essential arguments I most certainly agree. Among the problems were his inconsistent use of "being" and "nature", an assumption that "Lord" and "Yahweh" are identical (I have developed this in other posts since, see especially here), an unjustified presumption of resumption of divine rule in Christ's exaltation, and others. Most astonishing of all - and we see this on the increase within the scholarly world - there was the important concession that it is unhelpful to simply state "Jesus is God" and that "Yahweh is basically the Father" on p. 20. Perhaps the most wearisome note in his presentation is to assume that Unitarian perspectives are basically the same as 300 years ago.

So following Irons' ecumenical conclusion, let us see how Dixon will respond, bearer of the Arian label (reminder, this basically stands for the position that Christ pre-existed as a divine being, but is not God himself).

Dixon makes an interesting connection between the titles "Son of God" and "the Christ". Why is that important? It is relevant to the discussion because if you look at the conversation development between Luke 22:67-70, you get direct equivalence, Dixon claims because of the Greek underlying the weighty "then" of the chief priests and the teachers of the law: "You are then the Son of God". I'm not totally convinced Daniel Wallace would be totally comfortable that he has been correctly cited given the context of the intermediary verses, especially v 69: But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God. Thus "Son of Man" doesn't enter Dixon's argument, which I think weakens it.

However, where I see more eye to eye with him would be where he actually provides some evidence for my suspicions over John 10:33 interpretations. While the Jewish leaders did attempt to try Jesus for claiming Messianic authority once they had him in their kangaroo court, they never again brought up the claim that he was equal with God after this: Jesus' clear explanation and exegesis were sufficient to them. I think that is an excellent point. If we all agree that it would be the most outrageous claim of all to claim equality with God, then you would certainly expect that accusation to resurface before the authorities the night preceding Jesus' crucifixion. But it doesn't, which would indeed imply a satisfactory response from Jesus in the following verses.

Dixon is puzzled by Irons's claim of blasphemy from John 8:58. He recalls a similar wording from pseudepigraphal T. Job  2:1 "For I have been Jobab [Ego gar eimi Iobab] before the Lord named me Job [prin e onomasai me ho Kyrios Iob]."

On John 19:7, Jewish leaders were saying Jesus must die because he claimed to be "son of God". "Were they offended because it was Jesus who was making this claim? Was it because the claim was made at all? ...Which of these is the precise problem? Irons doesn't tell us". [I note that Irons assumes the latter].

On  Matthew 9:3 and 6... The people marvelled because such authority had been given. Again the authority to forgive had been given, which I think defuses the allegation.

Dixon now explicitly denies the "mere creature" allegations. If Jesus had a heavenly preexistence, he would have knowledge of the Father that he could indeed uniquely communicate to others. So he is not one who thinks of Jesus as a "mere creature".

On John 10:30. Jesus says in the same book that his disciples are to be "one" as he and the Father are one. See also John 17:21-23. He is totally right about this, and it continues to astound me that Trinitarians still think there is some secret unity in diversity language going on there in a way that works for the Triune-God case. If only Jesus had left out the identical unity in his church... shucks! Sorry, I lost track there for a moment. Back to Dixon.

Up to p30 now, Dixon draws another important parallel with what is possible for believers in Jesus: "is it not true that Paul prays that each believer in Ephesus be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God also (Ephesians 3:19)? Does not Peter assure his readers that it is possible for them to participate in the divine nature (share in God's identity?) and escape the world's corruption caused by evil desires (2 Pet 1:4)?"

Dixon now sets about a brief response to Irons' argument for ontological deity from 1 Cor 15:27 --> the exception to "all things" is clarified. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

P32 responds to Irons' Aseity argument for ontological deity.
Irons' use of Hebrews 13.8, "Jesus is unchanging..."
"Certainly "forever" can extend unendingly into the future. But it is an absurd idea that just because a status begun at a point in time yesterday continues to every yesterday past.

P33 THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.... The controversy is as simple as identifying whether Jesus as Son always had authority or was granted it.

One cannot exalt someone who already and always held the position to which he was raised.

P34 Worship
1 Chron 29:20.... Worshipped Jehovah, and the king. See my post on why this is not quite the same as Phil 2: http://faithandscripture.blogspot.fr/2016/03/worshipping-christ-and-god-father.html

Hurtado is on board with this.

The Divine Name: While God does not give his glory to others... How does Romans 8 glorification fit into that statement?

Debating the eye-witness testimony behind the gospels

There is a great weekly podcast waiting for you here at Unbelievable! I love this show because it confronts different perspectives on the Christian faith, which encourages honest and personal thinking. When I heard who was on this week's show, I was pretty excited. Actually as you listen through (as I did 4 times!), you can detect some weaknesses I think to both perspectives. Here is my response that I also sent in to the show host.

Dear Justin - thanks for a cracking show.

Read (or rather listened to) Bart's book myself. Absolutely no mention about his previous issues with the state of the "original" text. It's like he abandoned his first baby.

Throughout, both scholars seem to presume that Mark is the first gospel. Is it not a rather large, if not enormous, assumption to assume that the earliest surviving gospel is the first written account? Some scholars like Hurtado have commented on how surprisingly "bookish" early Christianity was.

On Mark, Bart could have made his case stronger than he did: "what we have is a collection of stories" - it is a lot more than a collection of stories! It is a crafted theological and christological piece, therefore not constructed in a way Peter himself would have presented it.

Ehrman's rebuttal to the frequency of Peter references did not seem strong - he pointed to stories of other heroes. But Jesus is the hero, and Peter is certainly not a hero in Mark.

"Historians are very reluctant to interrupt their stories with explanation" - seems to go totally against John's story-telling. Does he not helpfully provide little comments to explain Judaism to his non-Jewish recipients?

Ehrman: "I think it's the best case that can be made but I don't find it at all convincing"! The epitome of a sceptic.

Why should we presume that people thought the sources were directly from apostles: "It's a question of date". Gospel of Thomas was written much later, so different expectations as to historicity. Bart seemed correct here to demand more evidence - Richard really didn't seem to have anything substantial to back up his distinction between living-memory ("oral history") and oral-tradition (vulnerable to Chinese-whispers effect).

On gospel-naming. Early 2nd century writers do not quote the sources for the Jesus sayings they quote. I didn't find Bauckham convincing on the it had to be called something, which seems to pre-suppose that an anonymous document could never truly have been anonymous regardless of its place of use. Could it not be argued that if based on the "first" anonymous gospel, the gospels we know as Luke and Matthew (I place Matthew as late as John), could hardly have claimed less anonymity than their obvious source. 

I wonder if everyone noticed just how many classic Christian assumptions Bauckham is willing to de-bunk on authorship while hanging onto direct apostolic input? Matthew? No. John? No. Revelation? No, not even the same author as John's gospel. 2 Peter? No. I don't know where he stands on the disputed pauline epistles and other books, but it seems like the list is quite long for a conservative scholar. Ehrman doesn't jump on this.

There is a deep disagreement about who can write Greek from Jerusalem - it needs a third opinion.

I have written to Ehrman on this issue of authorship. If authentic-yet-autonomous gospels suddenly needed naming, why Matthew and John? A stronger argument to my mind is that no apocryphal work had arisen - yet - under these names. This could (should?) have been an argument for Bauckham - why would no apocryphal work have arisen under those names during all that time? Perhaps their early authority and apostolic association with those characters meant the names were not for sale.

"Everyone knows that Peter and Paul didn't write gospels". Did they? Bart suddenly ascribes considerable literary knowledge to the Christian community around the Med that seems to go in a totally opposite direction to the story-telling picture he provides. For me, both situations are improbable and we have yet to have a decent narrative to describe:
• Why these four names
• Why the earlier 2nd century authors don't reference the author
• Why there are no references to the mysterious-yet "anonymous" gospels in early church history prior to Irenaeus.

Both authors' reconstructions require them to disagree with some of their favourite early authors.
• Baukham on Papias on Matthew writing in Hebrew
• Ehrman on Justin Martyr (I think on Peter).

We have little from these first two centuries really, and reconstructions assisted by future archaeological finds, still have such a long way to go. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that in the context of debate and the pressure on authors to provide such comprehensive narratives, that this simple and humbling reality is not more clearly staked out.

There you go - a somewhat critical response to both!
Can't wait for part 2!

John B

Born from above or born again? Both are on the cards.

What does Jesus teach Nicodemus in John 3?

Everyone, or most people in the English-speaking world, has heard of the Christian-lingo "born again" Christians. For many Christians, being a "born-again" Christian is a crucial part of their identity. But is that what the Greek says? Let's look at the English NIV:

John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 

John 3:6-7 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

Bart Ehrman frequently likes to make an interesting point about John's gospel here. He actually believes that in Greek this word, anōthen, means both "again" (i.e. born again) and "from above" (i.e. born from above), and that John is placing clever, double-entendre teaching on Jesus' lips via word play in Greek (for a conversation that almost certainly would not have taken place in that language, where the Aramaic translation for "born again" and "born from above" would vary).  But if John was uniquely talking about being born "from above", then there is no good explanation for Nicodemus' confusion about physical re-birth. Meanwhile, being born from above fits the clear flesh-spirit distinctions. So it's probably both. The problem we are left with, I guess, is that saying you are a born-again-this-time-from-above Christian doesn't role nearly quite so well of the tongue :)

Retreating pointers

My experience last week was so rich, I still want to encourage people to take spiritual retreats, myself included. In the past, there have been some retreat-style experiences for me, but they were in groups and at other people's initiative. Here I want to share some of the things that helped this be a success in case any of these ideas could also help you prepare for a time out.

Firstly, sniff out an opportunity. If you struggle to continue the journey of knowing yourself and relish the thought of journeying forward with God and experiencing a fresh wave of release in your identity and purpose, then this should help you get sniffing, and, if a believer, praying for it too.

Secondly, when an opportunity arises - ask for advice on a good place and environment to go to (or maybe you know somewhere already). I have always been inspired by mountains (more so than the sea), because there is still something of a mountain-runner inside of me that just can't contain how incredibly beautiful these landscapes are when moving through them and interacting with them. I initially thought of camping, but the friend I consulted dissuaded me from that option. It's good to be comfortable but not in the lap of luxury either. I found a place on airbnb for 15 euro per night (I was particularly blessed here because the owners were away on holiday so I actually had full access to the living room, kitchen and garden too).

Thirdly, anticipate the departure. For a week or so I could sense my spirit within me slowly poise with anticipation about encounter. Some Christians talk about retreat as a time to meet with God. It is certainly that, but it is also about more fully becoming who you are, in order for meeting with Him to be a success. He has no problem with integrity. You, however, might do, and to be fully present for that encounter he will help you prepare and also experience it during. As someone who is at times obsessed by theology, I became aware that I would have to attempt to do as little of that as possible during the retreat to enhance the encounter experience. I warned my family to expect little contact during this time, and set up an automatic response email.

Fourthly, prepare practically for departure. It should be minimal. At one point, thinking that a personal retreat should be close to my previous group experiences, I thought I should prepare an organised programme, with timings etc. That is not necessary. This was my kit list more or less:

• My physical Bible
• My guitar and some worship music
• My knees
• Some verses to colour in and my kids' colouring pens
• An audiobook to listen to in the car on the way there. I had a credit on www.Audible.com, and spent it on God Is the Gospel: Meditations on God's Love as the Gift of Himself. It's pretty good; I may critique it at some point in the blog, but is more theological than I had been hoping.
• A gospel movie (2014 Gospel of John) and some worship music
• My readiness to be silent
• My trainers/walking shoes
• A journal and pen (essential)
• Candles, candle-holders and matches
• Some basic food for the time (shopping is a distraction)
• A great prayer book (semi-essential!). I have had a book for many years that I re-discovered on my shelves by James Houston, a Scottish Christian writer (I think). Man, I thought it was excellent:

Fifthly, enjoy! My advice would be to punctuate activities with pauses, prayers, etc. all the way along. Examine the inner thoughts and worries, the evil inside of you (or "evil" if you are not a believer), the pride, the competitivity, destructive temperament or ideas, recognise them as they begrudgingly submit to your authority of identifying themselves, own them, take full responsibility for them. I did this, and then tried writing the word "sorry" to God really slowly. Try to imagine the perfect Christ-like you. It is too vague for a Christian to simply pray or strive to be "christlike". What would you be like in a perfectly christlike way? For that, I think we need to pray, having taken responsibility for who we are for receiving God's great love and grace in our hearts.

I can also say I really took my time entering into the day, only when I felt fully rested did I get up. One day I thought I was rested started to get ready and realised my eyes felt heavy, so I went back to bed! It's all part of cultivating the inner-listening process.

There were a couple of discouraging moments. On one day I got more distracted and even a bit bored while trying to colour a verse, I also sent some SMS messages and had a little too much contact with the outside world. What helped here was the prayer book especially, the one by Houston. He brought me back to the deeper level quickly. Another thing is to be listening for when it is time (weather permitting) to go outside, to change environments. This works the other way too - after a walk, start longing to go back indoors (lodgings or a café) at the right time. I had some great moments actually just sat in the middle of nowhere with the journal.

One of the things I really appreciated in the prayer book was accepting to become a pilgrim. There is nothing magic about a retreat. You don't come back transformed into the all-new-you, but there can be breakthroughs and a shift in thinking as you embrace being on a journey, as clichéd as that has become, it needs to be a reality in all our lives.

I still have a sixth and a seventh point, concerning prayer for others and coming home, but I'll save those two for a separate post.

Retreat and meet yourself

When was the last time that you took some time out?
When did you last ask yourself "what do I really believe"?
How do you feel when there is a gap between what you feel inside and what you try to communicate to the person you are meeting? Is there a tension there? What is the effect of your superficiality on someone else's attempt at being authentic, that is to say, being who they are?
Is being "me" such a modern challenge, or have we humans always been pre-occupied by this difficulty?

I am in re-entry mode. For three nights this week I have had the incredible opportunity to go away for remarkably low cost into the stunning French Alps with the unique purpose of reflection and prayer. I honestly don't know when that will happen again. But on day 1 of re-entry, (i.e. I am back home) I can already safely say that I have sensed a covering over of improper internal machinations. And it's uncomfortable.

Any non-Christians reading this please understand something. Christians do not believe that we are sorted (at least the sane ones don't). There is a lot of falsehood, anxiety, disappointment, and unclear motives in the church (as well as lots of great things too). But the Bible, especially the New Testament, teaches us that God, through his resurrected Christ and his Holy Spirit, is drawing his church to a different kind of humanity. It's the humanity we were destined to experience, and every atom in our being yearns for. Three nights away somewhere will let you glimpse that. Using airbnb I found a place for 15 euro/night. If I know you personally then please if you need a contribution to help you achieve some time out like this in order to help you be truer to yourself to yourself (I love this expression!), to others and (if you believe) to God, then let me know, I'd love to help. If you can organise this yourself then it's better still. Own your retreat. Own your thoughts. Own your thoughts. Establish who you are. Take responsibility for your weaknesses and failings. Take responsibility. Appreciate the beauty of your surroundings for yourself. Share them with God, if you believe in him. Listen. Pray. Think. Be dissatisfied. Be satisfied. Aim for the perfect you in a strength that cannot come from you.

Time out. Become.

The Lord is the Spirit.... WHAT? New thoughts on 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 [updated August 2018]

I usually try to avoid too much theologising over the Holy Spirit, not because I don't love the Spirit but because I simply don't feel a drive to study the subject, in the same way I don't feel drawn to theories of atonement or theodicy (at least one post can be consulted here, however). That said, I have at various points thought with regard to 2 Corinthians 3:16-18: "huh, that's weird". Isn't the Spirit supposed to be distinct from Jesus, doesn't he go but send another? From a Triune-God advocate's perspective, you also might want to say that both Jesus and Spirit are God or fully-divine or essentially and perfectly united, or something, but that this unity still creates no confusion between their persons. So it's something of a head-scratcher. Here is the text from the NIV to refresh our memories:

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Seems like a problem, doesn't it? I have a new thought on this passage following a little bit of research I'd like to share with you, and if possible, please feel free to share your perspective. What is fascinating about this problem is that it should represent a difficulty for any Christological perspective, so you never know, this may be read with less scepticism. 

Tiny details can have huge ramifications, right? Here's a whopper: I recently learned and shared an article from early Christianity specialist, Larry Hurtado, in which he also cited other scholars who noted that especially in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) but also through the Old Testament, there is a literary clue in the Greek translation of Yahweh. Probably most people reading this blog already know that in the LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures, Yahweh is substituted by KYRIOS. Kyrios is a flexible word that means Lord, master or simply "sir". It is most certainly this  LXX version of the OT that the NT church used since the quotations cited in the NT texts align so closely to it. It is hard for me to realise why the point of this research is so unknown and even among some scholars. But here it is: KYRIOS is ANARTHROUS when in place of Yahweh. Eh? Anarthrous means the word does not have an article attached. In the case of Yahweh, the personal name of Israel's god, a clue to this origin was left by leaving out the article. 

So why do we translate Yahweh with "THE LORD", and not just "LORD" or some other name/title that has no article preceding it? That is a very interesting question to which I cannot yet give you a satisfying answer. One reason might have been that translators wanted to draw out links between Yahweh and Jesus Christ, who is undeniably assigned the title of the ultimate Lord. Some Greek specialists might like to quibble: sometimes the article is dropped anyway, it is difficult to predict article behaviour. On issues more associated with Theos,  this would be Daniel Wallace's perspective, who spent a lot of time wrestling with the issue. We also know from other places like John 4:24 (God [the Father] is spirit), which leads me to roughly submit the following alternative translation:

[Note this translation was updated in August 2018 based on the completed survey of Septuagint translations of Yahweh to Kyrios, the subsequent series on overhauling the biblical reliance on antiquated lordship language and the suggestion of reinforcing Eugene Peterson's translation of "GOD"]

16 But whenever anyone turns to GOD, the veil is taken away. 17 Now GOD is the Spirit, and where GOD's Spirit is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate GOD's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from GOD's Spirit.

Nowhere in the Greek in this text is Kyrios prefixed with the article, except at the start of verse 17. We can note especially that in verse 16 (turns to GOD), it is particularly curious that there is no article. Acts 16:18 has the same verb for turning but states "turned to the spirit". Acts 9:40, 2 Peter 2:22 also supply the article.

Finally, perhaps the most striking examples are John 13:3 and 1 Thessalonians 1:9. These two passages are two of only seven in the New Testament where God (theos) is

- mentioned twice

- is anarthrous in the first instance AND arthrous in the second.

In both John 13:3 and 1 Thessalonians 1:9 God (of all people) is articulated when prefixed by "to" (pro), literally: AND TO THE GOD HE WAS GOING (John 13:3) and YOU TURNED TO THE GOD (1 Thessalonians 1:9). 1 Thessalonians even has the same verb as 2 Corinthians 3:16. 

So the question remains, why would a New Testament author curiously drop an article before Kyrios? This proposal provides the following hypothesis: Paul was totally familiar with the LXX practice of article dropping for KYRIOS when it replaced Yahweh, and did so here, totally in line with the Old Testament context in which the passage is utterly soaked (tablets of stone, Israelites, Moses, the veil...).

Thanks for reading, and if interested see articles and the definite article. I also have an unfinished series in there on the word ARCHE that you can search for in the blog search field above.