March 31, 2009
“From the beginning of the quest the whole enterprise of attempting to reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus in a way that is allegedly purely historical, free of concerns of faith and dogma, has been highly problematic for Christian faith and theology. What, after all does the phrase “the historical Jesus” mean? “ (Bauckham, R. “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”, 2007, p.2)
Are the Jesus of history and faith really so incompatible? For those of us whose primary interest in the Gospels (and scripture generally) relates to Christian faith, it can be more than a little unnerving to encounter the historical Jesus as (re)constructed by academia. It seems that their own quest has very little interest in the Jesus of faith preferring a purely historical reconstruction of Jesus. I freely admit that I begin with the presupposition of Christian faith when it comes to Scripture. The Gospels provide a testimony of the historical Jesus, and can therefore be trusted, for the most part, in their portrayal of him. This is not to say that we should not endeavour to use literary and redaction criticism to understand how Matthew, Mark and Luke present Jesus to the communities to whom they wrote. It must be noted that much of what historians tell us about the historical context and settings of both Jesus and the early church, has been of great benefit to the exegete and has, in my opinion, begun to lay to rest many fundamentalist misreadings of the New Testament.
I wrestle with these questions because I desire to be faithful to God and the text before me. I do not believe this means I must ignore the historical and literary context of Scripture and the many challenges that brings for interpreting them within the context of the church. If we are to live faithfully as the people of God we must accept the idea that this text has been given to us by God; it is in this sense God’s Word to us. However, the text should not be excused from any form of historical or literary criticism; especially when such disciplines can help us to hear more clearly what is God is wanting us to hear!
As minister, as a Christian, where do my loyalties lie? With the Jesus as reconstructed by historians, which may at times challenge my previously held beliefs of who Jesus was, or, the Jesus handed to me by church tradition, which may at times challenge the reconstructed Jesus of history? “[T]he full reality of who Jesus as he historically was is not, of course, available to us…here we reach the crucial methodological problem. For Christian faith this Jesus, the earthly Jesus as we can know him, is the Jesus of the canonical gospels.” therefore, In the light of Bauckham’s statement, my questions are: ‘Are the Jesus of history and faith really so far apart?” And, ‘Where do my loyalties lie when trying to understand the Jesus of the gospels; in history or faith?’
3 Comments | 
Historical Jesus, Richard Bauckham, Scripture | 
Permalink
Posted by Mark Stevens
March 31, 2009
“Matthew’s story of Jesus is kerygmatic in character. in other words, the story of “Jesus the” is at the same time the founding story of “Jesus now”. It is the constitutive experience for its readers and is transparent for them. The transparency of the Matthean story is two-fold:
1.2.1 Its tells the story of Jesus as the story of Israel’s healing Messiah who causes division in his people…The story becomes indirectly transparent for the history of the Matthean church, whose roots were probably in the Palestinian Jesus movement, whose mission to Israel was a failure, whose members were expelled from Palestine to Syria and now find the new task, given them by the Lord, in the mission to the Gentiles.
1.2.3 The Individual pericopes of Matthew’s Jesus narrative directly reflect the fundamental experience of the Matthean community of Christian’s with their Lord (direct transparency). They see themselves as Jesus’ disciples, obeying his commands and experiencing with Jesus the healing, forgiveness,”coming to see,” etc of the miracle stories.”(Luz, U. “Mathean Christology” in Studies in Matthew. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 2005, p.83-96.
Luz goes on to argue how the story of Jesus as Immanuel reveals the nature of Matthean Christology. Especially as it relates to his use of the titles, Son of Man, Son of God and Son of David. However, my question relates to how much emphasis should be placed on the Sitz im Leben of the Matthean community in understanding the “Jesus of Matthew”? Or is the main horizon in Matthew Jesus and his own Sitz im leben? Essentially what I am asking is; did the Jesus story shape the message or the needs of the community?
Leave a Comment » | 
Gospel of Matthew, Gospels, Luz | 
Permalink
Posted by Mark Stevens
March 25, 2009
How might we better understand Scripture in order to better hear the Word of God addressed to us? I offer the following post in response to this question. If you disagree that is fine, my thoughts are not final; they are in process, therefore, if you disagree, BE NICE!
Firstly, it is helpful to understand Holy Scripture as witness; a human witness of God’s revelation within the historical reality of human history, in particular the history of Israel and the Church. It is a human witness that has been formed and shaped as a living text by a God who desires to reveal himself and make himself known.
Secondly, it is important to understand that the Bible is God’s Word to us. However, inspiration should not refer to the plenary writing of the text; rather, it is the miracle of faith that arises within us as we HEAR the Word of God addressed to us. As God reveals himself to us in Holy Scripture our faith is awakened and strengthened. Faith is not the impetus of inspiration it is the result. The Bible becomes the Word of God as we hear it…
3 Comments | 
Scripture: Word of God Word of Man | 
Permalink
Posted by Mark Stevens
March 24, 2009
I have been denounced by many people over the years for a majority of views, however, never have I been given the title ‘heretic’ by a denomination (I did come very close once 
). It seems that the great Bishop has received the fire and wrath of the Reformed Church of America (a denomination that is located some where to the left of whoopee on the theological spectrum). This is from 2005 therefore, I wonder if he has responded yet? Maybe not, he did have to write a letter responding to Piper and his theological numptyism!
Anyway, a friend of mine emailed this piece of ecclesial gold yesterday…From the report adopted by the 259th Synod of the Reformed Church of the United States, May 16-19, 2005
VI. Recommendations
1. That Synod adopt the following statement with regard to N.T.Wright’s doctrine of justification.
“We judge that the teachings of N. T. Wright on justification by faith are another gospel and call upon him
to repent of his errors.” Grounds.
a. Wright removes justification from the core of the gospel.
b. Wright undermines the full sufficiency of Christ’s work by grounding justification also in the work of the Holy Spirit.
c. Wright rejects the centrality, necessity, and importance of perfect righteousness for eternal life.
d. Through his wholesale rejection of imputation, Wright denies that the believer stands clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ.
e. Wright denies the finality of justification by faith.
f. Wright makes the believer’s works necessary for their ultimate justification when he defines faith in terms of faithfulness.
2. That on behalf of Synod the stated clerk be directed to send this report and a letter to N. T. Wright,
calling upon him to repent of his errors.
3. That this report be made available to the churches of the RCUS, and sent to all denominations in
fraternal relationship, and to member denominations of NAPARC and ICRC.
4. That this committee be continued and reconstituted to study the theology of the so-called Federal Vision
and report next year.
5. That this committee be directed to contact and interact with committees of other Reformed and
Presbyterian denominations that have established committees to study the NPP, the Federal Vision.
Well, what can you say when faced with such stunning biblical scholarship other than, “Dear Bishop, it is time to repent!”
7 Comments | Humour, Sarcasm | Permalink
Posted by Mark Stevens
March 24, 2009
What does it mean to say that Scripture is s God’s Word? How we understand terms such as inerrancy and inspiration will effect and affect how we interpret scripture and subsequently what we believe about God. It is important that we realise that these terms are an attempt by ‘us’, not God, to explain and understand scripture as God’s Word. These terms are ‘our’ explanations of what the Bible is in its function and form. These are not terms derived from Scripture or ever intended by the biblical authors to be thrust upon their writings. Scripture is God’s Word in its creation and existence because of its relationship to the one who has spoken it and continues to make it known today; God. To say that scripture is God’s Word is in itself a big enough demand on the text and ourselves without imposing further boundary markers. Surely the term, God’s Word, in and of itself, is enough to awaken within us a deep respect for, and appreciation of, the text and demand that we listen?
Leave a Comment » | Inerrancy, Inspiration, Scripture, Scripture: Word of God Word of Man | Permalink
Posted by Mark Stevens
March 20, 2009
It occurred to me this week that Mark’s attention to detail could provide a signpost to who his sources were. I would argue that Mark had as his source one of the twelve who travelled with Jesus; most likely Peter. There is in Mark an amazing eye for detail; places, events and situations are recounted with incredible description that almost seems superfluous to the narrative. For instance, when the storm is battering the boat Mark notes that Jesus was asleep on a pillow and that other boats had set to travel with them to the other side. In my opinion the author has access to information that could only have come from someone inside the boat. Others argue differently claiming Mark’s attention to detail as over compensation. However, the second aspect of the gospel that adds wait to the argument that Mark had access to eyewitness testimony when authoring his gospel, relates to the manner in which he portrays the disciples as ignorant to the reality of who Jesus was and what he was undertaking. Throughout the gospel the disciples appear to be as ‘thick as two bricks’ (heavy theological term I know).
Here is my hypothesis: Mark’s portrayal of the disciples as dull and ignorant comes from the testimony of one of the twelve. In the recounting of the Jesus story, the disciples, most likely Peter, would have recognised their ignorance regarding who Jesus was. It was not until after the resurrection, once they had encountered the risen Lord (which is not the case in Mark but the other gospels), that they realised the full extent of who Jesus claimed to be. The negative portrayal of the disciples most likely comes from Peter who in light of the resurrection realised how blind he really was! This is especially evident in Mark’s placing the two part healing of the blind man in Bethsaida directly before Peter’s confession (which signals the conclusion of the first half of the gospel and what lies ahead for Jesus the suffering servant).
I know that this is not ground breaking research, nevertheless, it has been helpful for me in unlocking some of the mystery of ευαγγελιον κατα μαρκον!
7 Comments | Gospels, Kata Markon, Preaching, Sources | Permalink
Posted by Mark Stevens
Books I wished had arrived on the Doorstep!
March 30, 2009Here is a list of books I wished had arrived this week, but alas, I shall have to wait! If anyone has any tips on how to score free books from publishers please feel free to let me know
1) Jim West noted his receipt of Dunn’s second volume in the Christianity in the Making series, entitled, “Beginning from Jerusalem”. Jim had this to say about his most recent acquisition, “Beginning From Jerusalem examines the rise of Christianity from its very beginnings through ‘The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership”. I must admit I did think Dunn was a little too close to the Great Bishop for West! I picked up volume one, “Jesus Remembered” for 50% off at our local Christian bookstore last year. It seems whoever was in charge of markdowns had no idea. I plan to read this volume before I start my thesis.
2) Davies, W.D., & Alison, D.C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew Vols 1-3, T&T Clark, 1989 – 1997. These texts have been recommended to me by everyone who has discovered I am focusing on Matthean studies for my Masters. Unfortunately their price has meant only library copies shall adorn my desk for now!
3) Matthew Vols 1-3 Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible Fortress Press, 2007. What is it with commentaries on the Gospel According to MAtthew being so BIG and EXPENSIVE? Like the volumes above, the cost of this seminal work by Luz will have to wait a few months (probably years). Thank goodness for Theological libraries!