important announcement for blog of danny reader(s)

Hey everyone, you may have noticed that I disappeared for a bit. Or maybe you didn't. Either way, it's largely due to a new project that I'm working on with Brian that is being launched today. That project is called "Boston Bible Geeks." It's a team website/blog that we hope will prove useful to those wanting to learn more about the Bible, theology, missions, etc.

Essentially, it comes down to this. I want to be able to use the internet, specifically a blog/website format, to aid in learning the Bible, and to supplement my teaching at church. That wasn't really being accomplished here, and truth be told, this may not be the best place. So, we switched to wordpress, since there you can have a "pages" feature, which makes it more website like, and still costs us nothing.

Also, neither Brian nor I manage to keep our blogs updated with any kind of consistency, as you've probably noticed. Honestly, it takes both of us to keep up with one normal blogger. We're busy and sometimes it's hard to justify spending so much time on a blog that no one reads. So, we decided to join forces.

As for the blog of danny, I'll keep it up and running for now. I may still post stuff about sports, although Bruce is the only one who reads that stuff and even then he never comments. So check back here, and give me some feedback. I may still be able to salvage this thing.

But for now, we'd really appreciate it if you go and check out Boston Bible Geeks, or "BBG" as we like to call it. My desire is that BBG will be a better place for interaction with those who read our blogs. Thanks so much for reading, hope to see you over at BBG.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part V of V

Check out parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

This final post deals with some of the "so what?" questions that come up in my mind as we talk about the resurrection of the body. Many people can't figure out why it matters, so I hope to deal a little bit with that.

Some qualifying thoughts…

1. In this whole discussion of future benefits of Christ’s resurrection, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are present benefits as well. Since Christ has defeated sin, we can be free from sin today. Romans 6 carries out this thought. Paul hints at this in 1 Cor 15:17.

2. None of this is to deny the temporal nature of “the way things are.” We are told time and time again not to cling to the temporary pleasures of today.

What does it matter?

1. Because the Bible says so. This may appear flippant, but it really isn’t. If the Bible says that we will be resurrected, then we ought (at the very least) assume that it is important. This is especially true when we consider that this is the very completion of our salvation!

2. True reversal of what happened in the Garden of Eden. This is clearly seen in Revelation 22. “On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there by any curse” (22:2-3). God’s plan is to reverse the curse that was levied against Adam and Eve in the Garden. The imagery of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21-22 intentionally echoes the Garden- and is even better!

3. God is not settling for plan B. By affirming that God’s original proclamation of creation as “good” and His desire to restore creation, we affirm that God is not simply a troubleshooter who had His plan thrown off track by those pesky humans. True, humans have marred creation with their rebellion. But even man’s worst rebellion has not ruined the inherent goodness in creation and its original worth to which God will restore it.

4. Helps reclaim eschatology in the Church. Much of the discussion on eschatology in American Christianity is dominated by talk about dates, tribulation, the Anti-Christ, the rapture, etc, that the hope that permeates the NT can be lost. Throughout the NT, Christ’s 2nd coming is seen as something to be longed for and a motivator for action. While most would agree, they still seem to get stuck on details the NT gives little information about and miss the victory that comes at the end. I find it heartbreaking the discussion of the “end times” tends to lead to confusion, fear or apathy (or some combination of these)- yet none of these were ever the intention of the NT authors!

5. There is comfort in knowing where we are going. It is interesting to note that where we go when we die is not where we will live forever. Where we go when we die is an intermediate state. Granted, it seems to be a wonderful place in the presence of God (Phil 1:23, 2 Cor 5:8). But that should make us long for what is beyond even that. If dying and going to heaven right now is better than this life, then how much better will living in a re-created world be!

In Romans 8, we see that Paul finds comfort during present sufferings in the fact that is “glory that will be revealed in us” (v18). But, note that the glory he is referring to is the redemption of our bodies- not simply dying and going to heaven right away (as true as that is). How different this is from the consolation we often give to others in suffering!

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we see that Paul comforts those who have lost loved ones- not by informing them that “they’re in heaven now”, but by reminding them that someday, Jesus is coming back and all His people will be reunited forever. This is, essentially, 1 Corinthians 15 in miniature. Yet, we consistently comfort those who mourn with thoughts about them being in heaven, which is comfort, to be sure. But, we are comforting them with something less than what God has planned!

6. There is value to the created order. In much of Greek philosophy the created order was something to be looked down upon. There was a higher spiritual existence that fair exceeded what we see here on earth. When one dies, their souls are transported to some disembodied existence where they remain forever. However, in the Bible, God values what He has created. This, of course, shouldn’t be surprising since He declared it all “good” when He first created it. Apparently, He values it enough that He was to see it completely redeemed.

This has some practical implications. First, in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Paul deals with the Corinthians who thought that the physical body was meaningless, therefore one has the right to do what they want with it (good Greeks that they were). Paul counters by pointing out that God is “for the body” and intends to raise us as He rose Christ from the dead (v14). Since God places such value on the body, so ought we.

Second, by analogy, we can make the same connection to creation as a whole in Romans 8. If God cares enough about the created order to redeem it fully, then we ought to care enough about it to honor it now, just as we should with our own bodies.

7. We share what belongs to Christ. This is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated aspects in modern Christianity. Those who are in Christ are “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). Christians have an inheritance with Christ (because of Christ). This is seen here in resurrection. Christ has won victory over death, and shares that victory with His people- that is, they are raised from the dead just as He was.

There are other places with similar ideas. For instance, in Daniel 7 the Son of Man receives an eternal kingdom and is worshipped by the nations. In that same chapter, the saints also receive the kingdom- but are not worshipped. In Ephesians 1, Paul says that Christ was raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of God in the heavenlies. In chapter 2, Paul says Christ’s people are also seated in the heavenlies- but not at the right hand of the Father. The examples of Daniel 7 and Ephesians 1 show us that Christ shares in His victory, although there are certainly limits. In the same way, Christ shares His resurrection with His people.

In Philippians 2:10-11, Paul says that he wants to participate with Christ in His sufferings and “somehow attaining to the resurrection from the dead.” In the next chapter, Paul talks about how Christians “eagerly await” Christ’s return when He “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (3:20-21). This echoes what Paul says in Romans 8:17- “if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” Christ shares His glorious resurrection with His people. That is what it means to be “in Christ.”

8. Treats death for what it really is- an enemy. There are hints in the church of the popular notion that death is just the beginning of a new journey (see Gandalf in LOTR). While our life as Christians certainly doesn’t end at death, the Bible itself treats death as an enemy that must be defeated. Death is not a part of God’s original plan for creation, it was the consequence of human sin. We know this by nature as well; death doesn’t simply feel like a new beginning. It hurts. It should; it’s a consequence of rebellion against God.

9. The resurrection points to the total view of the kingdom of God. “The kingdom of God” is the primary focus of Jesus’ preaching. Contrary to much of popular Christian opinion, this kingdom is not simply a matter of collected souls for some disembodied existence. Rather, it is His kingdom here on earth. This kingdom is inaugurated in Jesus, and is carried out through the Church. This kingdom involves feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc. In understanding that God’s people will be resurrected in (imperishable) bodily form, we see that this is the final “installment” of the kingdom.

Part of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom was His healings; these 2 things cannot be separated. In God’s kingdom, sickness & demon possession are seen for what they are- not a part of God’s original plan. In Jesus, these problems begin to reverse. As Jurgen Moltmann stresses, the kingdom of God- when it has fully arrived- is the restoration of the natural (original) order of things: “Jesus’ healings are not supernatural miracles in a natural world. They are the only truly ‘natural’ thing in a world that is unnatural, demonized, and wounded” (The Way of Jesus: Christology in Messianic Dimensions p99). These miracles point to what is to come- Moltmann says “But in the framework of hope for the coming of God and his kingdom, Jesus’ healings become inextinguishable reminders of this future” (In the End, the Beginning: The Life of Hope p65). Resurrection is ultimate healing- it fully restores what has been destroyed.

10. Avoids an “incomplete redemption.” The common view of “life after death” understands redemption as souls going to heaven. However, God’s plan of redemption is far more complete than that. He has not only given people souls, but bodies. Those bodies are affected by sin just as the soul is. God’s plan is not to discard what has been marred by sin, but to redeem it and set it free.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part IV of V

Click to read Part I, Part II or Part III.

It is interesting to see how crucial the early church considered the resurrection of the body, compared to the relative lack of interest in today’s church. This is not to place these writings on the level of Scripture. I’m including these for 2 main purposes: to show how early Christians interpreted the Bible’s teachings on the resurrection of the dead and to see how crucial this belief was to those in the Church who taught and pastored the people of God through decades (if not centuries) of growth amidst persecution. Though this is a small sampling, and admittedly these quotes are pulled from various contexts, I think these show that the resurrection of the body was crucial. It seems to me that these men defended the resurrection of the body for two main reasons: to argue against those who denigrate the importance of the physical body in favor of the “spiritual” world and to draw encouragement in the middle of the persecution and afflictions of this life.

As you will see, I stuck mainly to the first 2 centuries, with the two major early creeds at the end. These quotes proceed in more-or-less chronological order; the dates given are the best guesses at the dates of their respective births and deaths. I hope that at least some of you will not simply read these quotes, but go back and check out the context to see what else these writers say. You can find the writings of Clement, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus here. For the Tertullian writings on the resurrection, click here (and follow the links to the left); for Origen's you can click here.

Clement of Rome (30-100 AD), 1 Clement Chapter 24: “Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.”

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 80: “I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. …For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth]… who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians.”

Irenaeus (120-202 AD)), Against Heresies Book2 Chapter 29: “And then the doctrine concerning the resurrection of bodies which we believe, will emerge true and certain; since, God, when He resuscitates our mortal bodies which preserved righteousness, will render them incorruptible and immortal.”

Tertullian (160-225 AD), On the Resurrection Chapter 1: “The resurrection of the dead is the Christian trust. By it we are believers.” These are the first 2 sentences of this writing; you could go on to read this entire document, as it defends the physical resurrection of believers from a number of standpoints.

Origen (185 -254 AD), Origen de Principiis Book 2 Chapter 10: notes that “some take offense at the creed of the Church, as if out belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics.” Later he does note that there are “some of our own, who, either from feebleness of intellect or want of proper instruction, adopt a very low and abject view of the resurrection of the body.”

Apostles’ Creed (2nd century AD): “I believe in… the resurrection of the body.”

Nicene Creed (325 AD- I think this is the 381 AD form): “I look for the resurrection of the dead.”

I finish with the words of our earliest known non-canonical Christian writer, Clement of Rome (1 Clement Chapter 27):

“Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments.”

The Resurrection of the Body: Part III of V

Click here for Part II, here for Part I.

I'm continuing this series with a look at 1 Corinthians 15, which has more to say about resurrection than any other place in the Bible. This is not a very in depth look at the chapter, more of a survey of the main points that concern this topic.

This chapter, in a nutshell, teaches that because Christ rose from the dead, we know that His people will rise from the dead as He did. It does not function primarily as a defense of Christ's resurrection (contrary to some, I tend to think the Corinthians did believe that Jesus rose from the dead- otherwise the foundational argument of vv12-19 makes little sense). 1 Corinthians 15 does give us an idea of what it means for believers to "attain to the resurrection from the dead" (to steal a phrase from Philippians 3:11).

Paul calls Jesus the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v20, also in v23). I've said elsewhere that "first", being an ordinal number, requires a "second", otherwise Paul would say "only." Christ isn't the "only fruit of the dead" but the first, His people are the "secondfruits of those who have fallen asleep." When Christ comes back, "those who belong to Him" will be raised from the dead (v23).

Skipping to v35, Paul begins to give us an idea of what this will look like. He compares the current body to a seed, which will be planted and grow into a better body ("imperishable"- v42). I think where the hangup happens is when he states, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (v44). Because we tend to use the word "spiritual" to mean "unseen" or "disembodied", we assume Paul is thinking the same thing. However, that is not the way the Bible understands the word.

"Natural" and "spiritual" do not refer to composition or material (and I'm not sure how a body could be spiritual if it were referring to material composition). First, it's important to note that "natural" is from the word we normally translate "soul." If Paul were talking about the composition of the body (physical as opposed to immaterial), it would be awkward to refer to our present bodies as "soul bodies." Even in context, Paul quotes Gen 2, which states "the first Adam became a living being" (TNIV). "Living being" is the same word as a "soul." Clearly Gen 2 isn't referring to Adam's physical composition, as if it were saying that Adam became a soulish figure as opposed to a physical human being.

I hope I'm being clear here. When Paul contrasts "natural" and "spiritual", he isn't talking about how our physical bodies will someday be rescued from the physical world and brought into a disembodied existence. I stress this because most Christians have the idea that when we die, our souls go to heaven and that's it. But that is not what Paul is saying here. He is saying that there will be a day when Christ will return and our bodies will be raised from the dead in an imperishable body.

“Spiritual” is a term used for Christians elsewhere in Paul. He uses it in 1 Cor 2:15, indicating that there are those who are “spiritual.” Also, Galatians 6:1 instructs those who are “spiritual” to restore a fallen brother. This, coming right after the discussion of the fruit of the Spirit, means those who “live by the Spirit” (as evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit). Again, this is an indication that Paul isn't using "spiritual" to mean "immaterial." If so, those two verses take on an extremely different meaning, one that makes little sense.

What then does it mean to have a “spiritual body”? It means that while we are currently “spiritual”, the Spirit’s present work is not complete. After all, our bodies are still subject to decay. Of course, elsewhere Paul says we have the “firstfruits of the Spirit” (Rom 8:23), implying that there is more of the Spirit to come. Paul also refers to the Spirit as a “deposit” or “down payment” of what is to come (Eph 1:13; 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5). So, it seems that when Christ comes, our entire being- including our bodies- become “spiritual”- completely controlled and animated by the Spirit.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part II of V

For Part I of this series, click here.

In this post, we're looking briefly at the broader theme of God's restoration of fallen creation, and how resurrection fits into this plan. As always, this isn't an exhaustive look, but more of an overview of the subject in hopes to encourage reflection and further study.

When God first created all things, He proclaimed them “good.” Humans were given the responsibility of caring for the Garden and all living within it. However, Adam & Eve sinned, which damaged not only themselves, but the created order (see Gen 3:17-19). The created order as it presently stands is not the way it's supposed to be- full of decay and destruction.

God has, however, an overarching plan of redemption that includes creation itself. His plan is not simply to redeem individuals and fill heaven with their souls, but His intention is to restore creation (all of it) to what it was created to be. It was good, and it will be good again.

When we look at Romans 8:18-25, we see how God's plan of redemption for creation and mankind is tied together.

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Notice that creation is suffering decay, but there will be a time when that will no longer be the case- when the children of God will be revealed. Creation awaits redemption as we ourselves await "our adoption, the redemption of our bodies." Notice that Paul says "redemption of our bodies" rather than "from our bodies." It is not God's act of saving our souls from our bodies that we are to long for, but the salvation of our entire being. Just as human sin ushered decay into the created order, human redemption (the resurrection of believers) ushers in liberation from that decay. (That is not to say, of course, that it is human effort that brings this about- it is God's redemption of mankind.)

We see this again in Revelation 22, where John describes the New Jerusalem. In vv1-5 John says,

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

Now, even allowing for metaphorical and symbolic language, it is easy to see the theology of these verses. The comparisons to the Garden of Eden are obvious, but I want to point out two major things. First is the access to the tree of life. In Genesis 3:22-24 God denies Adam and Eve access to the tree of life "and eat and live forever." Expulsion from the Garden and denial of the tree of life are the climax of the curse against humans.

And that leads to the second important point: "No longer will there be any curse." The curse from Genesis 3 (incorporating humans and all of creation) is done away with. All of creation is renewed (and one could even say improved from Genesis 1-2). This is a picture of Paul's language from Romans 8- freedom from the bondage of decay.

In summary, God has a total plan of redemption, one that incorporates all of creation. The Lord will re-create, renew and restore what is broken. The resurrection of God's people ("the redemption of our bodies" in Paul's language in Romans 8) is a part- perhaps, one could say the key part- of that re-creation. We'll look a bit more at that point in the 3rd part of this series.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part I of V

I recently taught through 1 Corinthians in a class at my church, climaxing in my favorite chapter in the Bible- 1 Corinthians 15. I tried to whip some thoughts together on the importance of believing in the resurrection of the body- not just Christ's bodily resurrection, but the coming resurrection of all people. I'm not about to embark on an exhaustive study on this blog, but I'd like to post some thoughts.

I envision this as a 5-part series. This is the first post, simply laying out some thoughts on the issue. Part 2 will look at Romans 8 and Revelation 21-22 to see how the resurrection of the body is a part of God's total work of re-creation. Part 3 will look at 1 Corinthians 15, since this is the NT's longest discussion of the subject. Part 4 will be a quick look at some early Christian writers from the post-NT era, as well as a couple early Christian creeds. Part 5 will deal with the "so what?" question and give some reasons why we should even spend time thinking about this.

I've found that many American Christians (I can't speak for the rest of the world) are not even aware that the Bible teaches that God will raise people from the dead. Many feel that when believers die, they go to heaven and spend eternity there with God. This, however, is not really the teaching of the Bible. This isn't to deny that believers go to heaven when they die, it's just to say that the NT teaches that there is more to expect beyond this. As N T Wright has said (countless times at this point), the NT is concerned with "life after life after death", unlike we who tend to await "life after death."

While I'm tempted to pontificate why this lack of reflection exists, I think I'll spare everyone. I'll just simply note that this topic is largely ignored and I'd like to see that changed for reasons that will come up in the following posts (which may, of course, take me a few weeks to put up). I invite my reader(s) to comment as we go, though understand that no one post will contain everything within it. I will endeavor to explain what the NT teaches without forcing you to spend hours of your day scrolling through paragraphs of repetition.

I'll be dealing with the resurrection of believers more than unbelievers, for 2 main reasons. First, the Bible doesn't say much about the resurrection of unbelievers, but it says enough for us to know it will happen. Second, my audience is mostly Christian, and I want to encourage us through this study more than anything else.

And who knows, before I'm done working on this series, Christ Himself may return and we'll experience rather than reflect on what Daniel prophesied (12:2): "Multitudes who sleep in the dust will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." I would welcome the interruption.

1 Corinthians: Parallels to Acts

As I've been teaching Bible classes regularly the last couple years, I've found it helpful to tie together different sections of the Bible to show how the writings complement each other. As I teach the letters of Paul, I think it's good to go back to Acts as you read his letters and see if there may be any helpful information that Acts provides. So, in Luke's account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19), you learn that Ephesus has a strong community dedicated to the cult and magic. When you read Ephesians, you notice that Paul, more than any other letter of his, uses language of our victory in Christ in the "heavenlies" and strong language of "spiritual warfare" (Eph 6:12-20- maybe in another post I can talk more about this). No coincidence.

When I went back to Acts recently, I noticed a few parallels between its account of Paul's ministry in Corinth (Acts 18) and Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians, some are minor, some helpful. I thought I'd list them out for my reader.

1. Acts 18:3 says that Paul worked in Corinth as a tentmaker, which fits with his account that he worked rather than have the Corinthians "pay his way" (1 Cor 4:12; 9:6, 18- see also 1 Thess 2:9- this seems to have been Paul's modus operandi).

2. Acts 18:5-6 note that Paul's ministry to the Jews in the synagogues was largely unsuccessful, so much so that he declared "from now on I will go to the Gentiles." Sure enough, it seems reasonably obvious that Paul's Corinthian audience is mostly Gentile.

3. Luke tells us that "Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized" (18:8). Paul mentions baptizing Crispus in 1 Cor 1:14.

4. While Paul was in Corinth, "the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: 'Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attach and harm you, because I have many people in this city" (Acts 18:9-10). It isn't a stretch to assume, then, that Paul was afraid. In Paul's own words, "I came to you in weakness with great and trembling" (1 Cor 2:3).

5. Luke also records the beating of Sosthenes, another synagogue leader, at the hands of an angry mob (18:17). He was, presumably, a believer, and eventual "cowriter" (using that term loosely) of Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1:1- I wonder if he left Corinth because of the beating?).

6. Finally, after they all leave Corinth, Priscilla and Aquilla, Paul's coworkers, meet Apollos in Ephesus. Luke tells us "He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures...and he spoke with great fervor" (Acts 18:24-25), who was then taught more thoroughly by Priscilla and Aquilla. After this, Apollos ministered in Achaia and Corinth (Achaia is the overall region where Corinth was located) and "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate" (18:28).

Interestingly, this seems to have caused some unintended problems within the church at Corinth. We learn that some chose to follow Apollos, while some chose to follow others (1 Cor 1:12). It seems that some of the Corinthians had rejected Paul on the basis of his lack of "wisdom" and "eloquence" (1 Cor 1:18-2:16; see also 2 Cor 10:10). Could it be that after experiencing Apollos' rhetorical abilities and his knowledge that some had placed Apollos higher on the "spiritual" scale than Paul? It would seem that their love for wisdom and persuasive rhetoric would certainly make this possible, if not probable (1 Cor 1:22; 2:1-5). Of course, Paul doesn't blame Apollos; he was, after all, doing his job of watering the seed that Paul had laid down (3:6). And it's clear that Apollos was no longer in Corinth when this letter was written (16:12), so the divisions probably happened after his departure.

None of these 6 points, mind you, are necessarily crucial to understanding Paul's letter. In fact, it seems to me that numbers 3 and 5 are purely incidental, number 1 confirms what we already know in other letters, number 2 gives us a good understanding why Paul's audience in this letter seems so Gentile (and also confirms what we know from other letters- he was the apostle to the Gentiles, after all), and numbers 4 (on Paul's fear) and 6 (on Apollos' abilities) give us some interesting background that proves to be more helpful- especially the last point.

I've been tagged: Bible Meme

Cousin Jeremy (who incidentally will be legally changing his name to Cousin Jeremy soon) tagged me for this. Now, apparently as I do one of these I'm under contractual obligation to make a disclaimer along the lines of "I normally don't do these things, but... (my excuse: I can't sleep tonight)", so please consider it done. Thank you.

1. What translation of the Bible do you like best?

Although a long time user of the NASB, I might have to go with the TNIV- I've become a big proponent. Sorry, Jimmy Dobson.

2. Old or New Testament?

I'm with Jeremy on this one- aren't they both the Bible? I'm tempted to say the Apocrypha.

3. Favorite Book of the Bible?

Oh gosh. 1 Corinthians, because it has so much going on in it, I love using it for teaching. Philippians because it's downright awesome. Revelation because it's so different. Isaiah because it carries so many of the major themes of the Bible. I could go on.

4. Favorite Chapter?

1 Corinthians 15. Without a doubt. Philippians 2 pulls into second place. Or maybe Isaiah 53. Or maybe Psalm 103. Or Daniel 7. Or Revelation 4. Or Revelation 5. Or...

5. Favorite Verse?

For now, 2 Peter 1:3- "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." (TNIV)

6. Bible character you think you're most like?

Daniel- because we share a name and are both prone to frequent angelic visitations.

7. One thing from the Bible that confuses you?

Only one? I have always wondered what Jesus really meant when he said "God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." I've heard many explanations, but none have ever satisfied me.

8. Moses or Paul?

In a steel cage match to the death? Moses. But otherwise... let's break this down like a boxing match-

Moses & Paul: the Tale of the Tape

Canonical writings: Moses- the Pentateuch vs. Paul- 13 letters: advantage- even
Divine Encounters: Moses- the burning bush vs. Paul- the risen Christ: advantage- Paul
Guest Preacher: Moses- slow of speech & tongue vs. Paul- unimpressive: advantage- even
Miracles: Moses- 10 Plagues, parting the Red Sea vs. Paul- numerous healings: advantage- Moses
Helpers: Moses- Aaron, Miriam vs. Paul- Timothy, Silas, Barnabas, Luke, etc: advantage- Paul
Difficulties: Moses- rebellious, complaining people, dry desert air vs. Paul- ungrateful churches, imprisonment, beatings, "thorn in the flesh", eventual martyrdom: advantage- Paul
Movie Portrayals: Moses- Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments vs. Paul- Anthony Hopkins in Peter & Paul: advantage- Moses
Winner: Paul

9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don't get?

The teachings on caring for the poor are something I struggle with, not in understanding them but what that looks like for a 21st century American.

10. Coolest name in the Bible?

Mephibosheth

So I have to tag 5 people? How about the Neaves, Andrew, Jan, Brian and Isaac, except I don't know if he has a blog, so he can put his answers in the comments section.

Oh, and the answer to #6 was a bit of a joke, in case anyone was wondering.

Guardian Angels?

I've always kind of scoffed at the idea that there are guardian angels. I realize that the Bible teaches that angels do protect God's people (Ps 91:11), but I've never thought too highly of the view that God has assigned a specific angel (or angels) to guard a person. I've heard some interesting beliefs regarding this that are certainly nonbiblical. For instance, I remember hearing a sermon where the preacher went on about how our guardian angels even look like us. I had, in my mind, put guardian angels in the category of nonbiblical ideas that have crept into church theology over time and been assumed by many to be true without any Scriptural proof- along with receiving wings when we get to heaven and Satan's horns and pitchfork.

Recently, however, I read Matthew 18:10 (TNIV):

See that you do not despise one of these littles ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Now, I realize that this verse still doesn't necessarily have to mean that each child (person?) has one guardian angel assigned to them, though that is a possibility. But I admit, I was confused. Perhaps I've been wrong all this time, maybe the Bible does leave room for the possibility of guardian angels.

So I checked out D. A. Carson's excellent commentary on Matthew (page 401) to see what he had to say. I have to admit, with all due respect to a fine NT scholar, I found his explanation completely unconvincing:

The "angels" of the "little ones" are their spirits after death, and they always see the heavenly Father's face. Do not despise these little ones, Jesus says, for their destiny is the unshielded glory of the Father's presence. ...But can the word "angel" be pressed into this interpretation? Certainly Jesus teaches that God's people in the Resurrection "will be like the angels in heaven" as to marriage (22:30) and immortality (Luke 20:36). ..."their angels" simply refers to their continued existence in the heavenly Father's presence.

Really? Are Matthew's readers really supposed to pick up such a subtle nuance? Saying that believers will be "like angels" in the resurrection is quite different from saying they will be angels (and I'm sure Carson would agree, but he doesn't really deal with it here). Now, if there were some other connection between the two contexts in Matthew, he might have a point. But, one is about resurrection (Matthew 22:30), the other is dealing with a present issue ("their angels in heaven always see..."). Matthew 22 is dealing with the believer's "gender state" (for lack of a better term) at the resurrection, that idea is completely unrelated to Matthew 18. So what would ever prompt us to read that text back into Matthew 18:10? I fear that Carson has gotten too creative for his own good (and I will reiterate, Carson is a fine scholar and his Matthew commentary really is good).

In the end, I'd rather simply let the text mean what it says on the surface level- that these little children have angels in heaven. Does this mean they each have a guardian angel specifically assigned to them? Not necessarily, Jesus doesn't elaborate enough to make that a definite point. But it certainly leaves the door open for the possibility, in my opinion. And it means I can't just laugh it off anymore.

I've died and gone to heaven

This week was a monumental time for me, one that will go down in history as the week of 2 unexpected, life changing surprises (if I may use a little hyperbole, though not too much).

First, on Sunday, I received my favorite wedding gift of all, Gordon Fee's new (destined-to-become-a-classic) book, Pauline Christology. I love it so much, I'm giving you a picture:

Fee, as many of you know, is my favorite Bible scholar. God's Empowering Presence (on the Holy Spirit in Paul's writings) is my favorite biblical studies book, by a large margin. One point of interest for me in both of these books is that they were written largely because no one else has covered these subjects. Fee, while working on other projects, noticed that few, if anyone at all, have actually sat down to write books on these two topics, which is astonishing considered the centrality of Christ and the life in the Spirit in Paul's life and ministry (biblical studies has become such a "niche discipline" that the main points often get overlooked). I'm really looking forward to diving into this book (I've read the first 30 pages or so, which were enough to cause me to sit around and day dream about becoming a Bible scholar again).

So, thanks to my good friend who bought this book for me as a wedding gift (you know who you are). If salvation were obtained by good works, your ticket would be purchased and heavenly passport stamped.

My second unexpected blessing was the discovery of biblicaltraining.org. This is a site meant to provide opportunities for those who do not (or cannot) attend seminary to listen to classes given by scholars and professors. A number of my former profs are on here, including a class or two that I took in seminary. You have to register, but it is free. The classes can be listened to through Windows Media Player or Quicktime (for Mac users), and can be downloaded on MP3 (perfect for our iPod culture). Many of the classes have the lectures transcribed and outlined. They are adding more classes soon (I can't wait for some more Craig Blomberg).

I'd highly recommend Douglas Stuart's Old Testament Survey. I did not take this class in seminary, but I knew a few folks who said that this was their favorite class in their years at school, so I look forward to checking them out. Honestly, OT Survey wouldn't rank on too many people's list of anticipated classes, so if it this highly regarded, you know it has to be good. Also, I also want to give a plug for Tim Tennent's missions classes (there are more to be put up, hopefully soon). Tennent is, quite simply, one of the best professors and lecturers I've ever had the pleasure of hearing. You will be richer for listening to them.

As someone who teaches Bible classes in the local church, I've been looking for good online resources I can recommend to my classes (I teach 2 nights a week). For various reasons (maybe to be discussed in another post on another day), there has been a long standing rift between the church and the academy, one that I think is to the serious detriment of both. I seek to bridge that gap as best I can when I teach. More often than not, those in my class (I can't really call them my "students", that sounds way too formal for my teaching) have to rely on my own personal anecdotes and take my word for it that these scholars are not stuffy, ivory tower types (Doug Stuart is a great example of a world-class scholar who is anything but stuffy). This online resource enables me to point members of my church to specific lectures and classes to get a "scholar's take" on a topic. Some of the classes are even condensed to shorter classes (called "Foundations" on the site), so they don't have to listen to the full 30 hour version (though they may want to).

One feature I hope to utilize when I have more time is the "custom class" feature. I can pick lectures and classes that I want and set up a "class" for folks to log on to and listen. I may be able to supplement much of my own teaching (or am I supplementing them?). I can have a "listen to this" portion of a class, enabling folks to download them to their iPods and listen on their own time, and we can discuss the content in class. At any rate, I can't stop thinking about it and I'm beginning to become obsessed.

Yes, Christmas came a few weeks early for me this year.

God and His own glory

One of my favorite NT scholars is Ben Witherington. While I can't say I always love his stuff, some of it is downright great (The Jesus Quest, his commentary on Acts). I've been reading his blog now for sometime (apparently everyone has a blog now), and I sometimes find myself shaking my head in disappointment at his periodic unfair characterizations of others and what seems to be hastily written posts. I guess I'm so disappointed because he can be such a terrific scholar (and one with whom I have many theological agreements), I hate to see him write stuff that is not up-to-par.

Thus, today, I find myself disappointed once again. In his latest post he refers to the prominent view (particularly in Reformed circles) that God is concerned with His own glory. His post is filled with unfair characterizations such as this one:

Let me be clear that of course the Bible says it is our obligation to love, praise, and worship God, but this is a very different matter from the suggestion that God worships himself, is deeply worried about whether he has enough glory or not, and his deepest motivation for doing anything on earth is so that he can up his own glory quotient, or magnify and praise himself.

It's funny, I'm not sure I've heard any proponents of the view he is opposing (John Piper, for example) who argue that God worships Himself (though I realize I haven't read everything on this topic). I'm also not sure I've come across any that paint the picture of God as sitting around worrying about this. Lastly, I know that I've never seen anyone argue that God is trying to "up his own glory quotient." Such condescending drivel is unbecoming of a first rate scholar.

Obviously this issue is too large for a short treatment here, but I want to point out two things from his post that caused me to scratch my head. First, on Philippians 2:5-11, he writes,

If the Son is the very image and has the same character as the Father, wouldn't we expect this text to say--'who being in very nature God, devised a plan to glorify himself through his incarnation' if God really is so self-referential? In other words I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God's character, reveals that God's character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.

What I find so confusing, especially coming from a NT scholar (who has written a commentary on Philippians, no less) is the complete lack of contextual reading. What we see in vv6-11 is a Cliff Notes version of Christ's story, which ends with this (9-11, NET):

As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow– in heaven and on earth and under the earth – and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

The passage doesn't end with Jesus' act of self-sacrificial love (though that is clearly an indispensable portion of the story), it culminates in God performing an action (exalting Jesus and giving Him a name above all names) and man performing an action (bowing and confessing that Jesus is Lord) resulting in God the Father receiving glory! Christ's sacrifice borne out of a heart of love is part of that story, but it is not the full story. The story doesn't end until God the Father is properly glorified!

Which leads me to my second criticism: Witherington acts as if those who propose the view that God is concerned with His own glory have no place for God being motivated by His love for His people. While I'm sure there are some who may minimize this too much, most will certainly give it its due. No one denies that Jesus died out of love for sinners. I agree that it would be wrong to say that Jesus' death on the cross is merely a means to an end of glorifying God (though it does do that, right!?!?!). And when Witherington writes "God it would appear is not merely a glory grabber, but rather a glory giver", I say "Amen!" God being motivated to act out of love is not incompatable with being motivated for His own glory.

Finally, I'd recommend you read Ezekiel 36 (among other places, another commentor on Witherington's post mentions Isaiah 48 as well), in particular vv22-23:

Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake that I am about to act, O house of Israel, but for the sake of my holy reputation which you profaned among the nations where you went. I will magnify my great name that has been profaned among the nations, that you have profaned among them. The nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the sovereign Lord, when I magnify myself among you in their sight."

5.5 random things: random things numbering 5.5

5.5. This post is dedicated to Panera Bread, whose wi-fi and limitless coffee have provided me an office away from my office (for the record, I don't really have an office...yet).

5. In all the writings about Cameragate (and there are far too many), I read 2 that were particularly awful. The worst was Gregg Easterbrook's piece on ESPN, which I've heard (rightly) blasted by some in the media. Two aspects stand out to me as especially heinous. First, his insistance that Bill Belichick was "stonewalling" investigations, an accusation for which he offers no proof. Belichick, by all accounts, did comply with Commissioner Gooddell's request for all videotaping and has been cleared of any further charges. Doesn't sound like stonewalling to me. The only thing that Belichick may be stonewalling is the media's desire to know all information. Unfortunately, "freedom of press" for some members of the media means that they are entitled to total access to the thoughts and actions of public figures. I'm proud of Belichick on this one. Second, his column is full of terms like "perhaps", "maybe" and "might be." The Patriots might be stealing offensive calls by installing microphones on their defenders' jerseys. The Chargers defensive coordinator used to coach for the Bills and Jets, and he may have been using the same exact signals last week as he used years ago and the Patriots knew them all (of course, if he hasn't varied his signal calling over the years, he's an idiot). Let's quit with the "potentials" and stick with the facts. Easterbrook, you're an idiot.

4. The second worst article I read came from an otherwise good football writer (also of ESPN) and member of the Hall of Fame's media wing: John Clayton. He argued that the punishment on the Patriots ($500,000 personal fine for Belichick, $250,000 fine on the team, loss of 1st round draft choice) was too lenient. His premise: "Here's the problem with Goodell's decision: Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in another trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice." The problem with Clayton is that he's wanting to punish the Patriots for more than their cheating, he wants to punish them for being good. Look, the penalty for cheating ought to be the same no matter how good or bad the team is. The Patriots are the best franchise in football and have been since the beginning of the decade. Don't punish them for being better, the punishment fit the crime just fine.

3. Josh Beckett is well on his way to winning the Cy Young Award this year. It's certainly not a lock, but he'll probably be the only pitching with 20+ wins and is trailing in the ERA lead by only .11, with probably one more start before the end of the season. He's been the only consistent starter this year for the Sox, wrestling (without much of a fight) the position as ace of the staff from Curt Schilling. Terrific season.

2. Danny's Fantasy Football Update: 1-1, with my loss coming only by 1 point. I'm never happy about losing, but when you consider that LaDainian Tomlinson has only rushed for 66 yards in 2 games and Drew Brees has only thrown 1 TD, that's not too bad. Both guys are too good to keep down for very long, eventually they'll play well and my team should be doing fine. In the meantime, I'm thankful for the midget receiver named Steve Smith, who has 217 yards receiving and 4 TDs in only 2 games. My best decision of the draft was picking him up.

1. Upcoming book release alert: Rediscovering Paul, coauthored by one of my former professors, Rodney Reeves. Reeves is a quality professor, and a strong man of God who insisted on making NT studies (with all its focus on Greek Grammar, cultural backgrounds and theological insights) applicable to the church today. The book is geared more towards and undergraduate audience, rather than an upper-level textbook, which plays right into Reeves' strength (I don't know the other authors, so I can't comment on them). Craig Blomberg gives it a good review, which is enough to put it on my wishlist.

Romans 8:15 in the TNIV

I've been using the TNIV for a while now and really enjoy it. I used it originally because I was teaching a class using a book that speaks highly of the TNIV and I wanted to check it out. For a couple terrific reviews, check out Craig Blomberg's review and one by a guy named Rick Mansfield (ht: Jeremy).

But this morning I was reading in Romans 8 and ran across v15, which reads like this:

The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

It caught me off guard because I'm used to something like the NIV, which reads, "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear..." Part of the reason why I like reading different translations is that it offers different renderings that cause you to go back and look at what Paul is really saying, which is what happened here.

I'll tell you what I don't like about the TNIV rendering: it causes an unnecessary tension with other passages where Paul clearly tells us that we are slaves (or servants, they are the same word in Greek). For instance, in Romans 6:22 Paul says, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." So the question is: are we slaves or not? The answer, of course, is that we are slaves, but to whom? This is the key to understanding the difference between slavery in 6:22 and in 8:15.

But if one read Romans 8:15 in the TNIV in isolation, they would assume that Paul has no place for "slavery" in the Christian life. However, when you read 6:22, and even note that Paul starts this letter with "Paul, a slave [servant] of Christ Jesus", you realize that Paul is quite comfortable with such language (as is the rest of the New Testament). Being both slaves and sons, servants and children, is an apparent paradox, but nonetheless a powerful truth. I think that the TNIV muddies the waters a bit when it doesn't have to, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can any of you think of a reason why the TNIV translation is preferable in this instance?

messages to the 7 churches: background info for Revelation

This past spring (I guess it's still technically spring) I had the joy/challenge of teaching 4 weeks on Revelation. I've studied Revelation on and off for a few years (took an exegesis course on it in seminary, read a few books, etc), and have come to be a firm believer that John was writing not only to give a glimpse into the end of time, but to address specific circumstances of his readers. Chapters 2-3 give us the 7 churches to whom he wrote (though many feel the number 7 here is more symbolic, which is probably true, but at the very least we can say that his audience did include these 7 churches), and I discovered some interesting background data that help us see how Christ tailored His message to them through John. Following are some notes I jotted down as I was researching, some I learned a while ago, some recently, some I probably learned a while ago and had to relearn due to my failing memory.

To the church in Ephesus (2:1-7)- I learned the least about this city, mainly because I came in with more knowledge of it. It was very important in the NT times: Timothy was stationed there when Paul wrote his letters to him, Luke dedicates an entire chapter to the events in Ephesus in Acts 19, Paul wrote a letter to Ephesus (or least the churches in that area, see the textual problem of Ephesians 1:1), and church tradition says that John lived in Ephesus later in his life, which means that his gospel and his letters may have been written for Christians there. Ephesus also would have been the first stop for John's letter carrier, so naturally it would be addressed first.

To the church in Smyrna (2:8-11)- John addresses a problem with the Jewish-Christian relations in Smyrna. It's interesting to note that around 155 AD some Jewish people of Smyrna endorsed and even assisted in the killing of one of the great early Christian martyrs, Polycarp. That's about 60 years after Revelation was written, so it seems that this could have been a lasting problem for Christians in this city. The martyrdom of Polycarp is one of my favorite non-biblical stories, you can read it here.

To the church in Pergamum (2:12-17)- Pergamum was the capital of Asia at this time, and was the center of Emperor worship in this region, hence John calling this place "where Satan has his throne." It also had a large altar to Zeus, which I read was about 120 feet by 112 feet, which seems ridiculously huge. It's easy to see how this could be considered the home of Satan. Regarding the promise of a "white stone with a new name written on it", I read that in some places, when a person was found guilty of a crime they were given a black stone, but when found innocent, they were given a white stone. This may have been in mind here.

To the church in Thyatira (2:18-29)- This seems to have been the least important and least exciting of the 7 churches. It was a city of merchants, though the various metal workers present there may explain the emphasis on "burnished bronze" in v18 and the "iron scepter" of v27. The Romans called the planet Venus the "morning star", which was a symbol of victory, which may be why Christ promises to give them in "morning star" in v28.

To the church in Sardis (3:1-6)- Christ's main message to this church is one of readiness. He tells them to "wake up!" in v2 and threatens to "come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you" (v3). What is interesting is that Sardis had a great citadel which was never taken in battle. However, it was twice overtaken by sneak attacks at night. The residents of this city knew all too well the dangers of being unprepared for what might come, Christ's message to them must have hit home.

To the church in Philadelphia (3:7-13)- My Revelation professor (Dr Sean McDonough, not related the baseball announcer of the same name) pointed out that Christ's promise to make the Philadelphians "pillars in the temple of my God" may have had special meaning to them. This city had apparently suffered bad earthquakes that caused a lot of damage to the buildings there. The promise to become part of the unshakable structure of the Lord's temple would have been particularly powerful for these believers.

To the church in Laodicea (3:14-22)- This city was home to many famous banks and medical schools, which may explain why they felt so proud of their own accomplishments (v17). Some geographical background info may also explain some often misunderstood verses. Vv15-16 are often thought to mean that Christ would rather someone be completely on fire for Him or completely against Him (hot or cold), rather than someone who wavers (lukewarm). In reality, it is much more likely that Christ chose this aquametaphor specifically for this group because of their water problems. Laodicea lacked its own good water supply. It was located in between Hierapolis, which had a hot water supply used for medicinal purposes, and Laodicea, which had a natural cold water supply used for drinking. The waters mixed near Laodicea and made lukewarm water, which was good for nothing. Jesus is speaking more about usefulness than He is the level of one's commitment towards Him. The picture of a person spitting out lukewarm water would have been familiar to a Laodicean, even if we misunderstand it.

why I am a premillennialist: some thoughts in progress

One of the most debated passages in the Bible is Rev 20:1-6. What do we make of the "1000 year" reign of Christ and His people? I cannot pretend to have figured this passage out perfectly; it seems to me that each position has its share of problems. Here are the main views taken by scholars, all of which have a good history of interpretation within the church:

Postmillennial- this view sees the millennium happening at the end of the "church age", preceding Christ's return. To put it simply, the world will be essentially Christian before Christ returns and His followers are resurrected.

Amillennial- this view sees the millennium beginning with Christ's first coming and continuing until His return, the picture of Christ and His people reigning in Rev 20 is a present reality. In my opinion, the best recent commentary on Revelation is Greg Beale's commentary, who is an amillennialist.

Premillennial- this view sees the millennium as a future time after Christ returns to this earth and His followers are resurrected. Within this view are 2 main camps: dispensationalist (one form of which can be seen in the Left Behind series) who add their own distinct flavor (pretribulational rapture, distinction between the Church and Israel), and historical premillennialists, who essentially hold to what I just said above.

I would be classified as a historical premillennialist, but a slightly odd one, because my reading of Revelation often looks more like something an amillennialist would hold (I won't bother getting into this now, just trust me). I had a friend in seminary who describe me this way: an anti-dispensationalist historical premillennialist with amillennialist tendencies. I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Anyway, I want to state from the outset that I think each of these 3 views are well within the realm of orthodoxy. This is not a hill I want to die on, I think we can find ways to coexist just fine (though I admit my pleasure in taking shots at dispensationalism). But the millennium, whatever we make of it, is in Scripture so I figure it's worth at least forming an opinion, no matter how tentative. I'll say a couple quick things before I begin my short list: 1) I don't take the 1000 years literally, I think it is a symbolic number just like the other numbers in Revelation; 2) I'm trying to restrict my comments to Revelation 20:1-6 and other passages in this book, since I could go on forever by including every conceivably important verse in the Bible; 3) I do think there are plenty of holes in the premillennial position- it's just that I think it has fewer big holes than the other positions. Without further ado, here you go:

1 And I saw an angel coming out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

1) The issue of Satan no longer deceiving the nations. I've often heard a caricature of the premillienial position that we sit in fear of the devil and his schemes. I'd rather say, in the words of one of my pastors, that we are "in awe of God but aware of the devil" (this, of course, can be true of any of these millenial positions). Elsewhere in the NT Satan is seen as active in our time (1 Peter 5:8-9), which may be enough to see Satan being bound happenig in the future. But even more convincing is Revelation 12:12, where Satan is said to be filled with anger because he has little time left. So, as the following verses show us, he decides to wage war on God's people. That is hard to reconcile with the picture of Satan being bound for a long period of time and his powers of deception being taken away. It is said by some that the words and picture in Rev 20 do not necessarily have to mean that all of his powers are thwarted (Beale gives his reasons for this in his commentary). But I wonder what language John would use if that were exactly the picture he wanted to draw. If he wanted to show that Satan's powers were no longer useful, what would he say, since apparently "seized", "bound", "locked and sealed... to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore" are not strong enough? (And it can't be something along the lines of "annihilated" since that doesn't happen until later in the chapter.)

2) Witnesses or judges? Throughout Revelation God's people are called to be and are portrayed as witnesses in this world. The word "witness" recalls the courtroom, where witnesses offer evidence which may assist in convicting or acquiting someone. God's people act as witnesses in that they testify for God, and their testimony condemns the world (or can vindicate some if they repent). Throughout this book God's people are called to be faithful witnesses unto the very end, even if that means their death (that is, after all, following in Christ's footsteps, see 1:5). However, in Rev 20 they are now seen as judges with Christ. This reflects a change in the Christian's current state and their state to come. This change comes when Christ returns and takes His throne on this earth, and His followers reign with Him.

3) The martyrs under the altar or reigning with Christ? Ben Witherington points out that the martyred souls in Rev 6:9-11 are under the altar awaiting the judgment of those responsible for their deaths. In Rev 20, the souls of the martyrs are seen as reigning and judging with Christ. In Rev 6, they are told to wait. In Rev 20, they don't seem to be waiting for anything, they are finally fulfilling their roles as a "kingdom and priests" that is seen in Revelation. In other words, there is a change in their position, a change which is a result of the resurrection.

4) Addressing Beale's claim that beheaded souls must refer to non-material bodies. Beale claims that psuche (traditionally translated "soul") does not have to refer to a physical body (as it does in Rev 8:9, 12:11, 16:3- in these passages "living body" may be the best translation), and this is true (Rev 6:9 is a perfect example of this). He also claims that it cannot refer to a physical body here because these folks were beheaded: "an awkward picture emerges: 'bodies of beheaded people'" (pg 998). This, however, is not a problem if you see these folks as those who have been resurrected. In other words, John sees "the souls of those who had been beheaded" but were now resurrected (therefore no longer missing their heads).

5) If "came to life" refers to physical resurrection in v5, then it is likely to in v4. Beale argues that the meaning of this verb can change within one verse, which is true. But one must provide strong evidence that this is the case. It is possible John changes the meaning that quickly, but doing good exegesis in difficult passages isn't about proposing what is possible but what is most likely.

6) The problem of "resurrection." In v4, the "souls" of the martyrs "come to life" and reign with Christ. This is, in John's words, "the first resurrection" (v5), as opposed to when the "rest of the dead" come to life. For an amillenial or postmillenial interpretation to work, "come to life" and "resurrection" in v4 have to be taken in a "spiritual" sense (though I hate that term, because I don't think that's how the Bible uses "spiritual" at all, but it's the common lingo so I'll adopt it here) rather than physical. If "first resurrection" refers to a non-material resurrection, then when does the physical resurrection take place? I guess I have a problem with any view that sees "resurrection" as anything other than a bodily resurrection (to be clear, amillennialists and postmillennialists do believe in a bodily resurrection of believers, they just don't think that's what's in view here).

You'll notice that one of the common themes in these is the change in these verses from the rest of the Book of Revelation. The way the martyrs are described is different from elsewhere in the book. God's people have now come to life and are resurrected. Satan's work is described differently here than elsewhere in Revelation (see chapter 12). Something has changed to make all this happen. In my opinion, the best explanation for this is that these verses are speaking of a different time from the rest of the book of Revelation. We are still waiting for these verses to be fulfilled, when Christ will return and His followers will be resurrected just as He was.

my top 5 NT studies books

Those who know me well are aware of my affinity for books, especially books in the realm of biblical studies. A while back I decided to post my favorite 5 NT books from my own personal library, but I'm just now getting around to it. Please note, these are only from my personal library, there may be (and probably are) some out there that would make it on the list but I don't own them. Also note that these are not commentaries (maybe I'll get around to that), but rather books that cover a particular topic or theme. These are not necessarily in any particular order, except that my favorite is last, because I believe in saving the best for last (which is why I eat the edges of my Pop-Tarts first, as well as the crusts of my sandwich).



So my first one is actually an honorable mention, which is kind of cheating (maybe I should have called this my top 6). The Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament by Craig Keener is technically a commentary, so it doesn't fit the criteria for my list. However, I feel that I can't leave it off because I have found it to be an indispensable resource (I just realized after I typed this sentence that those exact words are on the cover of the book, weird). The truth is that most of us never study ancient history or ancient cultures, so our knowledge of important background information is limited. We often get the sense that there is something going on that we don't understand because the NT culture is so far removed from our own. So whether you're dealing with head coverings or Jewish dinner customs, Keener has given us a crash course in ancient culture all in one book going passage by passage. I personally think that if someone learns the basics of exegesis and hermeneutics (see the Fee and Stuart books pictured on the right), then the most important resource for them is a good book on background information. Keener fits that bill.

Back in my senior year of college I took a class on the Life and Teachings of Jesus. One of the books assigned to us was this book, The Jesus Quest, by Ben Witherington III. I suppose it isn't so much an NT studies book as it is a book about NT studies and studiers. Witherington is a master of making clear what is often confusing, especially when it comes to the view points of other scholars. In this book he takes on what is known as the "Quest for the Historical Jesus." He gives an overview of various scholarly opinions, from those of the Jesus Seminar (his chapter is great for those who aren't familiar with this group) to more serious scholars, such as John Meier and N T Wright. He gives solid critiques of the views presented, but also is able to pull away some good lessons to learn from just about any scholar. It would be nice if he would update this book to include some of the recent works (such as that of James Dunn), but if you're one of those who watch all those "Jesus specials" on TV (I'm raising my hand) and wonder who these scholars are, chances are Witherington will talk about them.

I've always found Richard Hays to be an absolutely fascinating scholar. Though I often disagree with his approach, he never ceases to challenge my reading of a text. At least one of his books has become something of a modern classic (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul) that is referred to frequently by NT scholars. Simply put, he's one of those scholars that you must deal with even when you disagree. That is how I approach this book on NT ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays will no doubt infuriate those from a strong conservative viewpoint (that would be me, by the way) because he doesn't really take an "inerrancy" point of view, but if you read him carefully you'll find that he presents strong cases for his arguments. He often comes away with conservative stances (abortion is wrong, homosexual intercourse is wrong, etc), but is probably not strong enough for some. In a rare touch for Bible scholars, he even includes some personal stories, which I find refreshing (his story about his good friend who was gay was particularly touching). His chapter on war and pacificism (he's a pacifist) was, to be honest, challenging. I'm not saying he turned me into a pacifist, but he certainly made me think. All this to say, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who are well grounded in Scripture. For someone who is still trying to figure out where they stand on some issues and struggle with the authority of the Bible in our lives, this is not the book for them.

One of the hardest things about making this list is choosing only one N T Wright book. I could just as easily have chosen his book on Paul, The Climax of the Covenant or even better is his phenomenal treatment of the resurrection, The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is probably his best book. I have opted, however, to go with Jesus & the Victory of God because it was this book that introduced me to Wright's scholarship and made me a fan. Mind you, there are plenty of points of disagreement, but he often forces me to rethink my position. Wright is probably the most consistent scholar I've ever read, even if consistent to a fault. For example, Wright opposes much of popular Christian writing on Jesus by arguing that Jesus did in fact have a message to preach to His original hearers, not just a timeless system of salvation (this is easily misunderstood, Wright certainly believes in salvation for all ages). Wright reads the gospels in light of this understanding, which I agree with. However, being stubbornly consistent in this has led Wright to take some unlikely interpretations, such as the notion that Jesus never refers to His second coming. Those references in Mark 13 (and parallels) to Christ coming on the clouds of heaven are Christ's judgment on Jerusalem in 70AD rather than Him returning some day (again, Wright does believe Jesus is coming back from other texts, notably Paul, he just doesn't think Jesus Himself predicts it). I tend to think that runs contrary to the words of the angel in Acts 1:9-11, spoken a mere month and a half after Jesus uttered His words. At any rate, Wright is masterful in placing Jesus within His historical context and explaining His message in His own time (which does, in turn, help us understand it more clearly, rather than confusing it as some might suppose). Wright is also quite adept at pointing out the fundamental flaws in some scholars (such as Crossan & the Jesus Seminar). If you get nothing else out of his writings, you should pay attention to his methodology and his critiques of other's presuppositions. You will learn more than you counted on.


As with N T Wright, I had trouble choosing which Richard Bauckham book I would add to this list. Interestingly, my favorites are two small books. I could have chosen God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (a mere 89 pages) and been quite happy with it. But I opted for his book in the New Testament Theology series, The Theology of the Book of Revelation. What I love about Bauckham (again, similar to Wright) is that you can learn how to do exegesis/theology while you read his books. Packed into 164 pages are discussions on the high Christology of Revelation (the sharing of divine titles and worship between the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb as evidence of this), the importance of God as Creator for the book ("Where faith in God the Creator wanes, so inevitably does hope for resurrection, let alone the new creation of all things. It is the God who is the Alpha who will also be the Omega." p51), a great discussion on true victory as depicted in Revelation (faithful witness through suffering and death), and so on. As I am currently teaching Revelation I continually find myself refering to Bauckham to make clear what I often find muddled.


Without a doubt my favorite book in NT studies is Gordon Fee's magesterial tome, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. In this book, Fee discusses (in great depth) every instance where Paul mentions or alludes to the Holy Spirit. He covers grammatical issues, theological issues, contextual problems and so on with great clarity. This book is over 900 pages (!), but can be read in portions (although if you want to read it cover to cover I'm sure you'll still learn a lot). He pulls his exegetical discussions together at the end with a helpful synthesis of Paul's view of the Holy Spirit. One of the distinctive contributions Fee makes to this discussion is his insistence that the Holy Spirit was an experienced reality to Paul and his churches. In other words, there were actual manifestations of the Spirit's power and presence (see 1 Corinthians 14 and Galatians 3:5). While Fee comes from a Penecostal background, he does have some differing views from this tradition. Most notably is the view that all Christians are full of the Spirit from the moment of conversion. In Paul's mind, there is no such thing as a non-Spirit filled Christian, those terms are contradictory (see Romans 8:9 and the assumption that his readers all have the Spirit in Galatians 3:1-5 and 5:22-25).

Notions of New Nomenclature: Saul to Paul

One of the perplexing changes that occur in the Bible is the sudden switch from Saul of Tarsus being known as Paul. From his introduction in Acts 7:58 he was simply known as Saul, the once persecutor turned preacher of Christ. Seemingly out of nowhere in Acts 13:9 we read, "Then Saul, who was also called Paul..." and from then on he is always refered to as Paul. By the time of his earliest letter (which I take to be Galatians) he only refers to himself as Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.

There have been a number of suggestions for this change. The one that most of us probably heard over the years is that Paul changed his name when he became a Christian, presumably because the association with Saul, the rejected king who disobeyed God and attempted to murder David, was no longer a favorable one (as if it would be any more favorable for a Jewish person). One book even states, "Jesus changes Saul's name to Paul" (137), which is a bewildering statement considering Jesus' role in the name change is never spelled out by any biblical writer (or even suggested).

Perhaps my prefered suggestion is that Paul, being a Roman citizen, actually would have had 3 names including his ethnic name (Saul, his Jewish name) and a more Romanized name, in this case, Paul. You can find this in a couple places, I always recommend Craig Keener's Biblical Background Commentary on the NT for this type of info. This would lend us to think that Paul strategically begins to go by his Roman name as he ministers more and more to Gentiles (and it might not be a coincidence that Sergius Paulus is mentioned in Acts 13 as well, perhaps Paul was hoping to garner some favor). Obviously one could go by two names, Peter is known as Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) in the NT (though he is not a Roman citizen, and these are nicknames anyway, remember his name is actually Simon); but it is understandable why Paul made this decision.

But today I ran across an article by one of my former professors, Sean McDonough, in the summer edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature. He makes another suggestion that I find intriguing, though perhaps not convincing. He notes how Paul, as he begins preaching in 13:16, gives a "history of Israel" in sermonic form (not unlike Stephen in Acts 7) and includes a reference to Saul in vv21-22, the only time he is mentioned in the entire NT (I believe). McDonough suggests that this is an odd thing to mention (there are more important characters left out of his sermon), but believes it gives us a clue to why Saul begins to go by "Paul."

King Saul was a man of great physical stature, one who commanded respect merely at the sight of him. But his character did not match his imposing size, making him a goat more than a hero in the biblical story. Saul of Tarsus had a different goal in mind (who wouldn't?), and opted not to be associated with one of great physical presence, so he adopted Paulus as his name. Paulus is a Latin name meaning "small." It was a fairly common name in the ancient world. In switching his name, Paul was declaring that he was not going to be a physically dominating man, but a "small" man (in the eyes of the world). Of course, if 2 Corinthians 10:10 ("in person he is unimpressive") refers to his small stature, he may not have had a choice.

At any rate, I'm not really convinced this is what Paul had in mind, I still think the second option mentioned is preferable. Both the latter 2 are better than the first, which has little biblical evidence to commend it. I guess I lean towards the second simply because the biblical writers, including Paul, don't make a big deal out of the name change, so we probably shouldn't either (unless Luke was being really subtle). Instead, if there is a reasonable suggestion based on solid (historical) evidence that would have made sense to the original readers, that's the one I'll choose. If anyone is still reading this blog, I'd love to hear what you think.

assumptions & arguments: early Christian beliefs in 1 Corinthians

Sometimes it takes being sick to help us realize what is truly important, like blogging. Okay, that's a bunch of crud, but I since I've called out of work (or called in, which do you say?) I have the time to write something. In fact, I may write two somethings if I have time. Anyway, it's been over 3 weeks since I last blogged, even my own mother was making fun of me the other day for it.

I'm just beginning to teach 1 Corinthians in a class for my church and I'm really excited. One thing I notice about this letter of Paul is how it gives us a clue into the life of the early church that we might not otherwise have if the Corinthians weren't so screwed up. For instance, there is no other book in the NT where it clearly states that the earliest Christians regularly observed the Lord's Supper. True, we have mentioning of breaking bread in homes in Acts 2:46 which may well refer to this, "tasting the heavenly gift" in Hebrews 6 is another possibility; there may be more, these were just off the top of my head. But I'm not sure we would have strong NT evidence without 1 Corinthians (side note: take a moment and read 1 Cor 11:17-34 and note in what ways most of us do not observe the Lord's Supper in the manner Paul instructs here).

What I find more interesting, however, is not the controversial points, but those points which Paul assumes he and his readers agree to. The common ground they share gives us a great clue as to what the earliest Christians believed and practiced. For instance, even with a largely Gentile congregation Paul refers to the OT Scriptures in a way that assumes they know what he's talking about. Even if they don't have the background Paul does, they know enough that Paul feels comfortable using them (I'm assuming, of course, that Paul is knowledgable of their Scriptural comprehension and not overshooting).

You'll also see how Paul, in 8:6, weaves Jesus into the Shema (from Deuteronomy 6:4-5), which is quite a strong statement of Jesus' divinity coming from the pen of a Jew. Again, he doesn't argue this point, he assumes the readers accept it already. In fact, he so strongly assumes its acceptance he uses as a building block for his argument. This indicates that the divinity of Jesus was already considered standard doctrine very early (scholars Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham have argued this at length).

One last thing I noticed is the reference to Jesus' earthly life that Paul makes in 1 Cor 11:23-25. It is a common criticism of more liberal scholars to claim that Paul really didn't know much, if anything, about Jesus' life on earth, otherwise Paul would refer to it more often. Here, Paul, while discussing the Lord's Supper, quotes from Jesus. He even puts it within a context- "on the night he was betrayed" (v23). Paul is clearly aware of the tradition of Jesus' betrayal and feasting with His disciples and assumes the Corinthians are as well. Is it unreasonable to imagine that Paul discussed these things with them when he was present and preaching the gospel? These are the foundational aspects of Pauline Christianity, we are reading the problems that arise in living out the gospel (this goes for 1 Corinthians, Galatians and most other Pauline letters).

My point is this: if you want to get an accurate look at the earliest Christian beliefs and practices, sometimes the best thing you can do is read what is assumed rather than what is argued. Since these letters were written to address specific situations at specific times we ought to excuse Paul for not writing a systematic theology textbook (no, not even Romans counts). Like a good pastor he is trying to right the ship where it has gone off course. He uses the gospel, the Jesus tradition and his previous teachings to lay the foundation, but spends most of his time arguing the implications of these things in the life of his churches.

Theological Consistency and Pauline Mathematics: "All Israel" in Romans 11:26

A few years back I set out to understand one of the most complicated passages in the Bible: Romans 11:25-32. In particular, I wanted to figure out what Paul meant by "all Israel" in v26. I had been taught that Paul was referring to a large group of ethnic Jews repenting and turning to their Messiah just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. For a while I accepted this and that was that, but it never really sat right with me. It just seemed to fly in the face of everything Paul had argued up to this point in Romans (and in other letters, notably Galatians and Ephesians): that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Yet, the traditional explanation I had been given seemed to sneak an escape clause for the Jews in the back door.

I suppose there are 4 main views of "all Israel."

1. It refers to every elect Jew throughout history.

2. It refers to every individual Israelite.

3. It refers to a large number of Jews toward the end of history.

4. It refers to both Jew and Gentile believers as the people of God.

For the sake of brevity, I'll discard the first 2 options (my apologies to anyone who holds one of those). The first is so obvious (oh, you mean all elect Jews will be saved!) that it seems weird Paul would be saying that. The second has the simple problem that "all Israel" never actually means every individual Israelite (there are examples of this in Jewish literature, not to mention we frequently say things like "all Boston was there" knowing full well we don't literally mean every individual Bostonian).

The third option is the most common, at least in the world of Biblical scholarship, while the fourth is definitely in the minority (actually, in my studies I've run across 3 proponents on this view: John Calvin, N T Wright and yours truly- if you know anything about the theology of these 3 theological giants [note: sarcastic self-inclusion] you'd understand what an odd grouping we make. I suppose Romans 9-11 makes strange bedfellows).

Let me try to address the main issues briefly to give you an idea of why I take the fourth view. Let's break it down to these 3 exegetical points: the meaning of "mystery" in v25, the meaning of the Greek word houtos ("so") in v26 (I wish I could figure out a Greek font, sorry for all the Hellenists out there), and the OT quotations in vv26-27.

** First is Paul's use of the word "mystery." When I set out to study this passage I never really thought this was all that important, and most scholars barely make mention of its implications for the meaning of "all Israel." Douglas Moo states, "Usually the mystery involves an event or insight associated with Christ's coming and the preaching of the gospel, but here and in 1 Cor. 15:51 it refers to an event at the end of history" (714). As great as I think Moo's commentary is, I'm not sure I could disagree more on this point. Why make the connection between this passage and 1 Corinthians 15? It seems to me that there is a better "mystery" connection, and that is with Ephesians 3. In that chapter, as with Romans 11, Paul is dealing with the issue of Jew and Gentile relations. In Ephesians 3:6 Paul gives us the content of the "mystery" he is talking about, "that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." The connection between Romans 11 and Ephesians 3 is obvious: in both places Paul is dealing with Jews and Gentiles becoming one people of God in Christ Jesus.

Now, the contexts of these passages are not exactly the same. However, it seems that the "mystery" is the same- only it is seen from two different angles. In Ephesians, Paul is reminding the Gentiles that they have been brought into the people of God because of Christ's work on the cross (2:16). In Romans, Paul is reminding the Gentiles that just because they were "grafted in" among the already existing brances of the "rich root of the olive tree" (Romans 11:17) does not mean they are to become arrogant as if they deserved it more than the Jews. The theology which undergirds these passages is the same- that God has brought Jew and Gentile together into "one new man" (Eph 2:15), made them fellow heirs with the Jews (Eph 3:6) and grafted them into one tree (Rom 11:17-24). However, the specific emphasis Paul lays on this theological mystery is dependent on the situation. In the church of Rome, Paul needs to emphasize the rightful place of the Jewish people within the "olive tree." On the other hand, as Peter O'Brien notes, Paul "writes Ephesians to his mainly Gentile Christian readers, for whom he has apostolic responsibilities, with the intention of informing, strengthening, and encouraging them by assuring them of their place within the gracious, saving purpose of God, and urging them to bring their lives into conformity with this divine plan of summing up all things in Christ (1:10)" (57). These different situations call for Paul to present this mystery in two different ways, but the mystery itself stays the same.

My point is this: the mystery Paul is referencing is not something that will be revealed at the end of time, but rather it is something that Christ has accomplished through His death and resurrection. He has made one people out of two. The Jewish-Gentile context in both Romans and Ephesians seems too strong to miss. For some reason, many scholars have overlooked this connection and subsequently have read something completely new in Romans 11:26, something not seen elsewhere.

** The meaning of houtos in v26 is not something that needs to be drawn out, since more and more scholars are tending to agree on its proper translation. I simply want to point out that this is not likely to be a temporal usage. In other words, Paul isn't saying "a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And then all Israel will be saved...." Instead, Paul is saying "a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And thus (or "in this way" or "in this manner") all Israel will be saved...." Most scholars, even those who disagree with my view, understand it this way. It does not necessitate the fourth option mentioned above.

The temporal aspect is important to discuss, however. Some point to the "until" in v25 as noting that Paul must be refering to Christ's second coming. In this case, the partial hardening has come upon Israel, but when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, that hardening will be lifted and "all Israel" will be saved. But Paul doesn't talk about the lifting of the hardening, only the Gentiles coming in (which can be simultaneous with the Jews receiving mercy, see v31- I'm not sure why so many scholars miss that). Moo insists that "until" must refer to the hardening being lifted because out of the 37 temporal uses of achri ("until") "25 rather clearly denote a period of time that will come to an end and be followed by a change of those circumstances denoted" (717 n30). I have to be honest, I don't understand the logic here. Because a word denotes x roughly 2/3 of the time, it means it should here? This still leaves open 1/3 of the cases, which is no small percentage.

Anyway, my point is this: Paul is not emphasizing the end of the hardening, but rather the manner in which God's people are saved. Both Jews and Gentiles can be hardened and softened (this all throughout chapter 11). Remember that Paul is talking about a partial hardening, not a full scale hardening of the people of Israel (again, I point out v31 and 11:5, which shows that Paul didn't think a total hardening has taken place). Jews and Gentiles are not taking turns being the people of God, they have been made one and are being saved together.

** Finally, let me comment briefly on the OT quotation, which is actually a composite quotation from Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9 (with perhaps a little Psalm 14:7 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 thrown in for good measure). I'll make my comments brief and I'll focus mainly on Isaiah 59 (which provides the meat). Isaiah 59 is a restoration passage (actually, Isaiah 40-66 is largely restorative in nature) which Paul quotes elsewhere in Romans: in 3:15-17 he quotes Isaiah 59:7-8. This Isaiah passage talks about the sin of Israel, and Paul quotes it in a long string of such OT passages which serve as an indictment against Israel. The important thing to note is that this problem is sin that Paul sets up in Romans 3 has been solved by the sacrifice of Jesus (Rom 3:21-26). Let me stress this so we don't miss it: the problem of Israel's sin (and for that matter, the whole world) that Isaiah and others address has been answered through Jesus Christ. His life, death and resurrection have provided the atonement for these sins. So, when Paul goes back to those familiar Isaianic restoration passages here in Romans 11, he isn't talking about Christ's second coming. He's talking about the same thing he's always been talking about, that is, Jesus has defeated sin and made the way for His people to come to the Father (both Jew and Gentile, check out Galatians 3).

Surely I think Paul believes that Jesus is coming back (1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4, etc). But here's what I think (though I need to do more research on this): Paul never quotes from the OT to refer to the second coming of Christ. The restoration promised through the Messiah has happened and still is happening. This can be misunderstood, so I hope I'm being clear. Paul's quotation must refer to Jesus' fist coming. This is consistent with his usage of restoration texts elsewhere and in Romans. This is not to deny that there is a future element to salvation, but it is to show that Paul is intending for his readers to understand that God has remained faithful to His promises. Now is the time for Israel to accept God's mercy. Indeed, they can be grafted back into God's tree precisely because of what Christ has done.

So here is my reading: Paul is telling his readers the same thing he's said all along, that there is a partial hardening on Israel (which means that some are still faithful), Gentiles are coming into the people of God, and this is how the people of God are saved. One of the criticisms against my view is that Paul must change the very definition of "Israel" within one verse, which is a legitimate observation. However, this is what Paul has been doing all along: redefining Israel. As N T Wright notes, "Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic disctinction of two 'Israels'" (250). Paul isn't talking about the salvation of one people over another, he is arguing that both are saved by God's grace through the work accomplished by Christ. Remember what he says in Romans 10:13, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." I wonder if we could define "all Israel" in 11:26 by "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord" in 10:13 (note the parallel "will be saved" in both verses- I think I learned this from someone, but I can't recall who).

If you are still reading at this point, you have accomplished no small feat. If it makes you feel any better, I wrote a paper on this passage that was much longer and much more boring than this. I'd love some feedback, but understand that this is a short defense of my view, not a dissertation. I'm aware of holes that I have not addressed, feel free to poke at them.

Let me end with this: for Paul, 1+1=1. Jewish branches + Gentiles branches = one tree (Rom 11:17-24); believing Jews + believing Gentiles = descendents of Abraham (4:16). There is no magical escape clause or exemption for anyone, faith in Jesus is what justifies a sinner, not physical descent. The problem of changing the meaning of "Israel" abruptly is far less problematic than saying that Paul is here introducing an entirely foreign theological concept, when an explanation that fits the context is readily available.