Think Wink.

Today I want to continue my look at Mark 1:14-15 and Mark’s record of Jesus’ first public statement.

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

What I am really trying to put my head around these days is what Jesus means by “The time is fulfilled.” The Greek reads πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς. What time was fulfilled. How did Jesus expect his hearers to understand him? How did Mark expect his readers to understand Jesus’ statement? The aim of this post is for me to just put down my struggles with this text and my attempts to contemplate what is to be seen in this text.
Read more

Theology and Logic

Pure Enjoyment

Faith, Works, Amen

I want to begin a brief series of posts on Mark 1:14-15 and Mark’s first recorded words of Jesus,

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

I have really been fascinated by Mark’s work on the ministry of Jesus. My fascination of Mark’s writing has dramatically increased this past fall, having studied the gospels. So I want to just examine this text and make some observations from this text about Mark’s view of Jesus’ ministry here on earth and how he wanted his readers to view Jesus and his work on earth.

The first observation that I want to make a connection from Mark 1:1 and Mark 1:14-15. Mark’s opening statement is, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (More could be said here as Mark continues this thought into the OT quote of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 with the conjunction καθὼς that most translations except the NLT fail to show). Mark 1:1 in the Greek begins with this series of genitives, ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ. The question is, do the genitives Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ function as the subject/definition of τοῦ εὐαγγελίου or as the object? If it is subject or definition, then τοῦ εὐαγγελίου is what Jesus preached or brought to the world. If it is object, then Jesus is the τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. I think that Mark 1:14-15 sheds some light to this question as Mark says “Jesus…proclaim[ed] the gospel of God.” I think that what Mark is showing here is that the gospel in Mark 1:1 is subject (some may argue for a plenary use of the genitive here and that would work). I think that this allows Mark’s use of ἀρχὴ to make better sense. Mark is recording the beginning of Jesus preaching of the gospel of God by taking us to John the Baptizer and the baptism of Jesus.

Hence, I think that Mark is trying to not give his readers in Rome, being persecuted by the state, a complete biography of Jesus’ life. Rather he is trying to construct a view of Jesus’ ministry. This also would make sense of the lack of a true ending to Mark’s work and it ending at Mark 16:8. He wants his readers to examine the ministry of Jesus and to glean from it all that they can so that from the life of Jesus, they can see how he dealt with his own struggles and what Jesus taught his own disciples, they can themselves face their own situation.

I think that is how Mark wants us to read his writing today. We are not facing the wrath of Nero Caesar after the city of Rome burned to the ground. But we face our own struggles in our 21st century world and the life and teachings of Jesus can be of great value to us. So the next time you want to study a gospel, look at Mark. He does not have the long discourses of Matthew, he does not have the parables of Luke, he does not have the signs and “I am” statements of John. Mark shows us the ministry of Jesus and the life that Christ lived. Christ came and proclaimed good news. Mark wanted his Roman readers to see that news that Jesus brought. It began with John’s arrival and it ended with the empty tomb. Take some time to read Mark and let Jesus simply impress himself upon you like he did Peter after Jesus concluded his Galilean Ministry or the Roman centurion while Jesus hung on the cross. Jesus asked his disciples point-blank in Mark 8:29, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered Jesus, “You are the Christ.” The Roman centurion upon seeing Jesus on the cross confessed in Mark 15:39, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

Testifying without Testifying Part 2 of 3

A Sermon Idea for Easter?

An Exegetical Insight

So I have been having a difficult time finding time to post recently. I work for UPS and during Christmas, the volume shipped increases geometrically. This week I will work from 2:00 AM, that’s right, until 9:00 am loading my four trucks with about two thousands pieces of mail. Then from 9:00 am until 3:30 pm-4:30 pm I will be helping drivers deliver packages to businesses in downtown KC. That means twelve to thirteen hours per day for five days. I will be tired with a fat pay check when all is said and done. If you want a prayer request, pray that a.) I will have the energy to perform my duties efficiently and accurately, and, b.) I will not go insane with all of the mail that I have to load when the majority of my volume is pushed through after 6:00 am. But it has been like that since Thanksgiving.

Usually my morning routine is get up, shower, hop in the car and drive to Edwards’ Religious Affections while scarfing down some pop-tarts and an energy drink. Once I get to work about twenty minutes before I clock in, I have my morning Scripture reading and prayer. Last Wednesday I read Ecclesiastes 10. Ecclesiastes 10:2 reads, “A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left.” The nation is gearing up for the primary elections to determine who the presidential candidates are going to be for the 2008 general election. When I had first read that text back in 2004, the first thing that came to mind was a joke about the “right” in this text referring to the political right (which I tend to lean) and the “left” referring to the political left. But I dismissed that thought as quickly as it came. The “right” in that honor/shame culture of Old Testament Judaism is honor and the left is shame. The a wise man is inclined to the right or to honor and a fool is inclined to shame or the left. But I was reminded of something back in 2004 when George W. Bush was re-elected.

A nasty habit of evangelicals is to say that to be a true Christian is to be a Republican because of the social stance on abortion and gay marriage that Republicans take. In 2004, the SBU College Republicans put out their T-shirt for that year with Ecclesiastes 10:2 on the back. Thus the intimation of the text is that a wise man is a Republican and a fool is a Democrat. Or at the very least a political conservative is wise and a political liberal is a fool. That is a mishandling of the Scripture and it is an intentional one.

Now most Christians might get that as humorous. But many will think that the given interpretation is accurate. It isn’t. Politics has no bearing upon the text at all. So when they would wear that shirt in public, they would be broadcasting that the only true Christian is a Republican. It doesn’t matter the relationship between the political liberal and the Lord Jesus Christ. It may not have been the intention of the SBU College Republicans, that is what was being communicated by the T-shirts. I remember calling out one guy who was part of the College Republicans that year. He thought it was okay to print that T-shirt but when I asked him if it was okay that he abuse the Scriptures in printing that T-shirt he wouldn’t answer or even try to defend the T-shirt. I emailed the faculty sponsor about the T-shirt and got no response.

It just served to remind me that my allegiance is not to any political party or candidate or government. It is to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. To take a text and intentionally mishandle it is completely unacceptable. If you want to be a politician who is a Christian, be my guest. But don’t allow your political views to take priority over your allegiance to Jesus Christ. As we near the 2008 election in which our nation will decide its leaders, both in the Legislature and in the White House, our first priority must be the Kingdom of God. We must look at each candidate and political party and see which will serve Christ and his Kingdom most faithfully. If it is a Democrat then vote Democrat; if it is a Republican, then vote Republican. But don’t use the Bible as a means for political gain. The Bible is not to be used to serve a person’s personal interests, rather, a person should submit his or her interests to the God found in the Bible.

Just some thoughts on the upcoming election and our role as Christians in it.

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 7

Am I a Five-Point Calvinist?

Always Been Curious

I have now read Dr Witherington’s two posts (“For God so loved Himself?” Is God a Narcissist? and Did Christ Come to Please Himself?) critiquing the Edwardsean world view that God created this world for his glory. The posts themselves, especially the first one, did not do a fair job of representing the Edwardsean view (You can read this post for more on Witherington misrepresenting the view). Edwards, and those who have followed him (like Dr. John Piper and myself), taught and believed that God created this world not so that he could have more glory but so that he could manifest his glory to the world and so that the world could know that glory and be satisfied in it and enjoy it forever. As Piper has stated, “God is most glorified in us (his glory is most clearly seen) when we are most satisfied in him.” But having read both of Witherington’s posts, I don’t think that he would disagree with the way he does in the posts with what is actually being stated. It is funny, Witherington said this in the second post as he concluded,

I don’t ask those out there in the blogosphere to take my word on this. Go and read some good commentaries on Isaiah by legitimate scholars who know the honor and shame cultures of the Ancient Near East, and know how this sort of language functions in such cultures. It is not sufficient to rely on old texts or textbooks on systematic theology whether by the Spurgeons or Owens or the like of this world, or by John Wesley for that matter. These men were not experts in ancient near-eastern culture, and they did not know how the language of honor and glory functioned in such cultures.

A good place to start would be to read two recent more conservative but well informed commentaries on Isaiah— say Brevard Childs’ on the one hand and John Oswalt’s on the other. When you do that, you will discover that ‘a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean’, and always there is the every present danger of reading one’s own theology into the text, especially if the only commentaries one reads on the matter are those of ancient systematic theologians, or even worse, you read no sources other than an ancient English translation of the Bible.

I completely agree. Many of the great theologians were not aware of the cultural background of the biblical writings to understand a lot of what is going on. I am always very weary of many of these older exegetes and what they had to say of a biblical text. But I do not hold to this Edwardsean view because of some ancient scholar. I read Piper’s book The Justification of God which is his attempt to understand γὰρ in Romans 9:15 when he was on his sabbatical when he was a professor. It was on the basis of this work that I came to hold to this view.

Over the last few weeks since BW3 started this blogosphere discussion, I was thinking about how to critique BW3. I was going to go to John 11 and the death of Lazarus and how Jesus waited for a while longer so that when he arrived Lazarus would be dead. The reasons being is that Lazarus illness was to show the glory of God and Jesus’ love for Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Thus when Jesus shows his glory he is showing them his love for them. I also thought about Daniel’s pray in Daniel 9 or Yahweh’s discussion of the new covenant in Ezekiel 36:22-27. But Witherington discussed in his posts about how this is shame language and God does not and will not allow his people to shame or dishonor his name. God’s honor is of top concern because all that he does is grounded in the honor of his name. But I will say that if God’s primary purpose in instituting the new covenant is to uphold his name, then doesn’t that mean that Jesus came to repair the damage mankind has done the honor of God by dying on the cross (cf. Romans 3:25-25)?

However, BW3 has really affirmed one of my primary concerns in trying to articulate my Edwardsean world view. People may misconstrue what I am saying very easily. I am not saying that God wants to get more glory for himself as if he is deficient in any way. So when I say God’s primary motivation in all his actions is to glorify himself, BW3 and others are taking it to mean that God is trying to get more glory or honor for himself. That just simply isn’t what I am saying. God is infinitely glorious and has infinite honor. There is no more honor to give him, for him to have.

What I am speaking of, what Piper and Edwards are speaking of, when I talk about God’s glory or δόξα is God’s moral perfections, his holiness, his beauty. I speak of what makes him God. His honor is part of that δόξα, but so is his self-sacrificing love for others as well.

I am reminded of the Gospel according to John. In John 1:14 we read about Jesus, the Word, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus came and revealed his glory to us so that we could see it. Us seeing Jesus’ glory is the reason why he came to earth. But what is so striking to me is what Jesus (and by extension John the author) considered him being glorified, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23). Jesus here is speaking of the cross. Jesus viewed his crucifixion as the hour when the Son of Man was to be glorified. On the cross Jesus’ glory is most clearly seen. The righteousness of God, the love of God, the holiness of God, the faithfulness of God are all seen on the cross of Jesus Christ. Paul calls Jesus “the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8).

When I am thinking of δόξα I think of Paul’s discussion in 2 Corinthians 3-4. In 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul says, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory (δόξα) of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” The δόξα spoken of here is that which made Moses’ face shine so bright after being in the very presence of Yahweh that it had to be covered with a veil. But it is a greater δόξα here that Paul says we are “beholding” or “reflecting.” And that δόξα changes us, transforms us into the image of Christ (cf. Romans 8:29). Piper compares this with the idea of a telescope. A microscope takes objects that are small and makes them appear big. A telescope takes an object, like a star, and makes it appear closer so that we can see it more clearly. We are to telescope God’s glory (cf. Psalm 96:1-5). We are to make God’s glory visible to the world and in doing so we become more like it!

Then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4 where Paul says that the gospel, the good news, that Satan blinds us from and causes us to perish (2 Corinthians 4:3) is the glory of Christ who is the image. But when one looks a 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, that person would see that Paul says that the gospel, or good news, is that Jesus died for sins and was raised to life according to the Scriptures. Thus Paul understands the gospel as being both Christ’s glory (δόξα) and Christ crucified and raised. They are the same thing. Satan doesn’t want us to see the light of this gospel of Christ’s glory. And in 2 Corinthians 4:6, that is exactly what God has shone forth into the heart of Paul, “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus.” God made Paul see his glory and Paul preached to the Corinthians Christ crucified and became a servant of the Corinthians for Christ’s sake.

The δόξα or glory that I speak of, when beheld by a person, transforms that person. It changes them from a God-hating and darkness-loving sinner to a God-loving, light-loving, sin hating saint. It isn’t just the reputation of God that is seen in the glory of God, but the very essence of God. It is seeing Exodus 34:6-7 in Christ Jesus on the cross (it is very important to note that Exodus 34:6-7 is God exegeting his name, Yahweh, which he told Moses is his glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-19)).

In conclusion, I want to thank BW3 for really underscoring the need to make myself absolutely clear in my world view. It took his misrepresentation of my view to make me realize how careful I have to be when I articulate what I am saying because the words I chose could convey an idea that I don’t intend to convey. So let me state as clearly as I can what I mean when I speak of God glorifying himself: God makes known his personal beauty/holiness/moral perfections to the created so that the created will be fully satisfied by them. God gives himself, in the person and work of Jesus Christ, in order to bring about the greatest joy and happiness of the created. In doing so, God is seen as most glorious, perfect, beautiful, and the creature is the most happy and joyous.

Are God’s glory and love at odds with each other?

BW3 and The Seer’s Tower

More Time with LDS

Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Calvin You are John Calvin. You seek to be faithful to Scripture, and to harmonize difficult sayings. You believe that in the Lord’s Supper those who have faith are united to Christ, who is present spiritually, yet in a real way. Calvin 81% Zwingli 75% Orthodox 56% Luther 56% Catholic 31% Unitarian 0%

My Comfort in Romans 9

Grudem’s Response to Piper

Original Sin

Jason E. Robertson at FIDE-O has posted on a possible BCS playoff after the disaster that has happened this year. Being a Mizzou fan, my heart was enraged to see two teams MU beat this year get a BCS bowl game and MU get the Cotton Bowl (not that the Cotton Bowl isn’t a good game). Granted Mizzou lost to Oklahoma twice and should not play for the national title, but that last lost should not have killed any hope for a BCS game. Check out the bracket the Robertson has drawn up. I like it.

Oh and before I forget…I hope Kansas can find any recruits in Texas after the Cotton bowl where MU will get all of them while KU is away in Florida. May be Missouri didn’t loose so bad after all.

Not As Tough As They Thought

BCS Rankings