What is the relationship between my faith as a Christian and history?
This is the basic question that I want to explore in a few blog posts over the next few days. It is a question that I wrestle with on a daily basis as a biblical scholar (which basically entails doing historical investigation) who is also a confessing and believing Christian. It is the question that, I believe, is usually at the heart of all the various kinds of questions I am asked by Christian laymen concerning the Bible. All of the "What about when the Bible says _______ happened?" questions fall under this basic question. So, without further ado, let me lay before you what I believe is the unquestionable answer to this question, and then try to defend it.
The Christian faith is worthless apart from the validity of the central historical claims that it makes.
You cannot have "faith" in the biblical, Christian definition and be unconcerned with history, because the content of the Christian faith is explicitly historical. Paul says it this way:
"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:12-19)
There is hardly any need to paraphrase, but I will for the sake of repetition: If the historical event of Jesus of Nazareth's resurrection did not occur, then the implications for the Christian faith are: (1) our gospel preaching is meaningless; (2) ministers of this gospel are found to be liars; (3) your faith is futile and you are still dead in your sins; (4) we Christians are the most pitiable people of all.
Some have proposed--and still today propose--that the Christian faith is essentially a faith in a set of "ideas." This would make the historical dimension unnecessary, because ideas cannot be bound to any particular history. (cf. "Lessing's Ditch") Ironically, I sometimes catch the very people who would be the first to advocate for the historicity of the Bible making this argument implicitly. When we say things like "The Christian faith is about the forgiveness of sins," or ". . . a personal relationship with Jesus," or ". . . being saved," we are often implicitly saying that these "ideas" are what the Christian faith is all about and we can "be saved" by appropriating these ideas for ourselves. (cf. Bultmann's existentialism) But if these ideas are divorced from the history proposed in the scriptures, then we are no longer talking about the "Christian faith" at all.
The content of the Christian faith is not a set of abstract ideas--even an idea as "Christian-sounding" as "Jesus saves." The idea alone is not enough. It is a faith in a particular history of events that the scriptures call us to, and if they are wrong then we are fools.
So we Christians simply cannot be unconcerned with historical questions. We cannot be unconcerned with whether or not the things recorded in the Gospels and elsewhere in the scriptures really did occur. (This will, obviously, cause problems . . . which I hope to address in a future blog.) The Christian faith is not a faith in "ideas" but in a particular history.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (1 Cor 15:3-8)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Romans: Future Justification Anticipated in Present Faith (Part 2)
Paul's Epistle to the Romans has been especially illuminating to me lately, and I wanted to share what I've learned. I have recently come to a better understanding of especially the first four chapters of this letter than I have ever had. I shared about what I had been learning about the first two chapters of Romans a little over a week ago; I'd like to conclude by sharing some thoughts on chapters 3-4.
Last time I mentioned that there is a major theme in Romans 2 that often goes unnoticed: namely, that Paul says that on the final day of judgment, we will either receive or not receive a justification "according to what each has done." (Rom 2:6) A verdict will be passed on that future day, and the verdict will depend on whether one has "by persistence in doing good [sought] glory, honor and immortality." (v.7) In 2:17-29, Paul begins describing how Jews (Israel), who were supposed to be the means through which God's salvation would go out into all the world (anticipating to some extent what Paul will say in chs.3-4) have in fact became a part of the problem themselves. They were supposed to be "a guide for the blind, a light for those in the dark" (v.19; cp. Isa 42:6; 49:6), but they have in fact failed to live up to this identity.
Romans 3
So this raises the questions Paul asks in ch.3 (see! there is a flow to the argument; Paul is not haphazard in Romans!): First, "is there any advantage to being a Jew, then?" (v.1) "Sure there is!" argues Paul. "Not least of which is that the Jews have been entrusted with the very oracles [scriptures] of God!" (v.2) Second, "will our [the Jews'] unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness, then?" (v.3) That is to ask the question, if salvation was to come to all nations through Israel--if they were to be "a guide for the blind, a light for those in the dark"--but Israel has been faithless to this covenant plan, then will God also be faithless? By no means! (A good Southern English translation of the Greek here would be: "Ain't no way!") God is going to move forward with his plan to rescue all of creation through Israel despite the fact that Israel is faithless.
How and when will this occur? "But NOW..." (v.21) is not just a simple conjunction. The "now" refers to the present. NOW God is going to display "his righteousness" (that is his faithfulness [cf. v.3] to the covenant plan of redemption for the whole world through Israel), despite Israel's faithlessness. He will do this through the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ." . . . which is a much better translation of the phrase pistis Jesou Christou in v.22 than "faith in Jesus Christ. (Think of how this verse sounds if we keep "faith in Jesus Christ" = "faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe" = a bit redundant don't you think? But if we translate, as we should, "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe" now we are talking about the righteousness of God being revealed in Jesus' (the Israelite's) own faithfulness on behalf of faithless Israel [to death on a cross? cf. Philip. 2:1-11] and also about how we participate in that act [i.e. by believing in him].) This is how Paul can then speak of being "justified by faith apart from the works of the Law" (3:28) and not contradict what he says just a chapter before in 2:6 and following. This "justification by faith" is a present justification that anticipates that final justification spoken of in ch.2! We can hear the future verdict now, says Paul, and we can he the verdict "justified" in the present on the basis of the faith alone because Jesus Christ has been faithful in his death and resurrection to the righteous plan of God.
Rom 4
Then Paul discusses Abraham. AND THIS IS NOT A DIGRESSION OR A MERE EXAMPLE! The point of bringing Abraham into the discussion is tied to the question in 3:3: Has God remained faithful to the covenant despite Israel's faithlessness to it? The covenant promises begin with Abraham, so to Abraham we must go to answer this question. Even back at Abraham we find, says Paul, that "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." (v.3) This "justification", this "being made righteous" ("to justify" and "righteous" are a part of the same Greek root dikaios), has always been attained by faith alone--even back with Abraham. And if Abraham is justified by faith, then so are we (vv.23-24). The plan has not changed. And although Israel was faithless to this covenant plan, God was faithful, even from the very beginning with Abraham. God's promise to Abraham that we would become a father of a great family has come true: "He is the father of us all!" (v.16b)--Jew and Gentile alike through the faithfulness of the Messiah/Christ, Jesus.
In sum, this is the new insight I hear from Paul in these chapters: Justification is two-fold. One day, all of us--Jew and Gentile alike--will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and either be declared "justified/righteous" or not. This is the moment of what we might call "future justification." But NOW (3:21) this verdict is offered in the present to those who believe in Christ, on the basis of his faithfulness to God's covenant with Israel. We can hear the verdict "justified/righteous" in the present, and that verdict will be a true anticipation of the future verdict we will hear at the final judgment, which is according to what we have done. This has been God's plan from the beginning, with Abraham, so that we can say that to "be justified" is essentially to be incorporated into Abraham's family--the family God is producing for him in faithful accord with the covenant he made with him, for the purpose of the eventual restoration of all creation.
If you're following the logic, you might ask, "How does Paul know that the lives of those who are justified freely 'by faith alone' in the present will necessarily produce the kind of "persistence in doing good" (2:7) that is to be the criteria for justification in the future?" I believe this is exactly the question Paul seeks to answer in Romans 5-8, and that ultimately his answer is that this hope is secured by the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives (5:5), whom Paul would affirm that we receive at this point of present justification. The one who has truly been "justified by faith alone" receives the Holy Spirit, whose fruits will necessarily be produced in our lives so that we may stand at the final judgment and "receive according to what [we] have done." (2:6)
I invite your feedback. I know this discussion is dense, but I hope you'll see that it is rich and alive, too!
Last time I mentioned that there is a major theme in Romans 2 that often goes unnoticed: namely, that Paul says that on the final day of judgment, we will either receive or not receive a justification "according to what each has done." (Rom 2:6) A verdict will be passed on that future day, and the verdict will depend on whether one has "by persistence in doing good [sought] glory, honor and immortality." (v.7) In 2:17-29, Paul begins describing how Jews (Israel), who were supposed to be the means through which God's salvation would go out into all the world (anticipating to some extent what Paul will say in chs.3-4) have in fact became a part of the problem themselves. They were supposed to be "a guide for the blind, a light for those in the dark" (v.19; cp. Isa 42:6; 49:6), but they have in fact failed to live up to this identity.
Romans 3
So this raises the questions Paul asks in ch.3 (see! there is a flow to the argument; Paul is not haphazard in Romans!): First, "is there any advantage to being a Jew, then?" (v.1) "Sure there is!" argues Paul. "Not least of which is that the Jews have been entrusted with the very oracles [scriptures] of God!" (v.2) Second, "will our [the Jews'] unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness, then?" (v.3) That is to ask the question, if salvation was to come to all nations through Israel--if they were to be "a guide for the blind, a light for those in the dark"--but Israel has been faithless to this covenant plan, then will God also be faithless? By no means! (A good Southern English translation of the Greek here would be: "Ain't no way!") God is going to move forward with his plan to rescue all of creation through Israel despite the fact that Israel is faithless.
How and when will this occur? "But NOW..." (v.21) is not just a simple conjunction. The "now" refers to the present. NOW God is going to display "his righteousness" (that is his faithfulness [cf. v.3] to the covenant plan of redemption for the whole world through Israel), despite Israel's faithlessness. He will do this through the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ." . . . which is a much better translation of the phrase pistis Jesou Christou in v.22 than "faith in Jesus Christ. (Think of how this verse sounds if we keep "faith in Jesus Christ" = "faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe" = a bit redundant don't you think? But if we translate, as we should, "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe" now we are talking about the righteousness of God being revealed in Jesus' (the Israelite's) own faithfulness on behalf of faithless Israel [to death on a cross? cf. Philip. 2:1-11] and also about how we participate in that act [i.e. by believing in him].) This is how Paul can then speak of being "justified by faith apart from the works of the Law" (3:28) and not contradict what he says just a chapter before in 2:6 and following. This "justification by faith" is a present justification that anticipates that final justification spoken of in ch.2! We can hear the future verdict now, says Paul, and we can he the verdict "justified" in the present on the basis of the faith alone because Jesus Christ has been faithful in his death and resurrection to the righteous plan of God.
Rom 4
Then Paul discusses Abraham. AND THIS IS NOT A DIGRESSION OR A MERE EXAMPLE! The point of bringing Abraham into the discussion is tied to the question in 3:3: Has God remained faithful to the covenant despite Israel's faithlessness to it? The covenant promises begin with Abraham, so to Abraham we must go to answer this question. Even back at Abraham we find, says Paul, that "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." (v.3) This "justification", this "being made righteous" ("to justify" and "righteous" are a part of the same Greek root dikaios), has always been attained by faith alone--even back with Abraham. And if Abraham is justified by faith, then so are we (vv.23-24). The plan has not changed. And although Israel was faithless to this covenant plan, God was faithful, even from the very beginning with Abraham. God's promise to Abraham that we would become a father of a great family has come true: "He is the father of us all!" (v.16b)--Jew and Gentile alike through the faithfulness of the Messiah/Christ, Jesus.
In sum, this is the new insight I hear from Paul in these chapters: Justification is two-fold. One day, all of us--Jew and Gentile alike--will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and either be declared "justified/righteous" or not. This is the moment of what we might call "future justification." But NOW (3:21) this verdict is offered in the present to those who believe in Christ, on the basis of his faithfulness to God's covenant with Israel. We can hear the verdict "justified/righteous" in the present, and that verdict will be a true anticipation of the future verdict we will hear at the final judgment, which is according to what we have done. This has been God's plan from the beginning, with Abraham, so that we can say that to "be justified" is essentially to be incorporated into Abraham's family--the family God is producing for him in faithful accord with the covenant he made with him, for the purpose of the eventual restoration of all creation.
If you're following the logic, you might ask, "How does Paul know that the lives of those who are justified freely 'by faith alone' in the present will necessarily produce the kind of "persistence in doing good" (2:7) that is to be the criteria for justification in the future?" I believe this is exactly the question Paul seeks to answer in Romans 5-8, and that ultimately his answer is that this hope is secured by the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives (5:5), whom Paul would affirm that we receive at this point of present justification. The one who has truly been "justified by faith alone" receives the Holy Spirit, whose fruits will necessarily be produced in our lives so that we may stand at the final judgment and "receive according to what [we] have done." (2:6)
I invite your feedback. I know this discussion is dense, but I hope you'll see that it is rich and alive, too!
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Egypt: Some thoughts on a former "home town"
I suppose that first and foremost I believe that the protests occurring are essentially a good thing for the people of Egypt, who--as almost every American who didn't know two weeks ago now knows--have lived under the Mubarak regime for some 30 years now, with the expectation that President Hosni Mubarak would hand over his government to his son upon his death, essentially continuing the same regime. The average Egyptian lives in relative poverty--he probably eats every day and he probably even has a cell phone, but good luck making any real social mobility occur for himself or his family, getting a college education for his kids or anything of that sort. This situation has been maintained by corrupt (yet American endorsed/funded) leaders like Mubarak, who has not until recently had to ever give any serious thought to how the well-being of the masses (or lack thereof) might be tied to his own political future. Egypt is a "Democratic Republic" on paper, but everyone knows that it is a de facto monarchy. Such was the case a month ago, but the amazing thing is that all this may change even in the next few days. Wow!
I have recently heard from the director of my study abroad program in Cairo, Dr. David Holt, who is a University of Chicago PhD in Comparative Politics who has lived in Cairo for about 10 years now. It was interesting to hear his diagnosis concerning the protests in the region in general and in Egypt in particular: "These events—in Tunisia, Cairo, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan—reflect the same symptoms of aftershocks from the 2008 crash in the US, where people here feel threatened by cuts to food and petrol subsidies. In this respect, Tunisia is symptomatic of another problem you all witnessed here [in Egypt]—a lack of governing legitimacy for the political and economic oligarchs whose corrupt privileges are partly sustained by US foreign policy alliances and financial aid. In this sense Tunisia is symptomatic rather than causative." Basically, the region's tolerably corrupt (at least tolerably from the U.S. point of view) leadership has until very recently been propped up by U.S. financial assistance. Since our economy tanked, there has been less funds to allocate to such political subsidies.
From a economic-political point of view I think Dr. Holt's thesis is solid. I also wonder, however, about another social factor that might be playing into all of this. The Middle East in general--with urban centers like Cairo being no exception to the rule--is very young. I think I heard it mentioned recently in a report I was reading about Yemen (another nation in the region undergoing similar crises) that over half of the population is under the age of 24! I don't know the exact figures on Egypt, but it can't be very far from that number. As with most young people throughout the world, these young people too are much more aware of the global socio-political situation than their parents' generation ever was. I mean how could they not be with the Internet, cell phones, YouTube, Facebook, etc? (all of which are at least as popular among teens and twenty-somethings in Egypt as they are here in the US. In fact, when I was there in 2008 I was surprised to realize that Egypt already had a 3G mobile phone network, whereas most of the U.S. still did not!) A big part of the governments' (Egypt's and others' in the region) response to these kinds of protests and uprisings has been to cut off mobile phone and Internet networks (i.e. a year or two ago with Iran, or last week in Egypt). Who are using those resources? The young people! Egypt, like many countries in the region, has an enormous youth population that has seen how the rest of the world lives via YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, mobile smartphones etc. and they want something better for themselves. It will not be surprising, then, to learn that the American University of Cairo--a major university in Egypt, with as much young-blood (and Western influenced) politics as anywhere in the country--is just a block away from Tahrir ("Liberation") Square in Egypt. I've not heard any definitive reports, but I wouldn't be surprised if that campus is being used as a major staging/organizing point for many of these demonstrations.
Well, I find this all fascinating, and almost wish I could be there now (though probably at a distance at this point) to see it first hand. (I mean the McDonald's that I used to study and get a milkshake at is right there in Tahrir Square! It probably has a tank in front of it right now, though.) That would not make my wife or my family very happy, though, so I'll stay put for the time being. Pray for Egypt, though. Pray that the people would remain patient yet persistent, pushing against the corrupt regime yet avoiding violence whenever possible. Truly, our attitude here in America (which Egyptians are aware of, by the way!) to all of these developments in Egypt and the region at large will be very important in the days and year to come. We as Americans ought to realize the sober fact that it is our government that has essentially been financing and establishing these corrupt regimes that are being toppled even as we speak. It's time to wake up and realize that our nation's leaders have been using our tax dollars to invest in governments like Hosni Mubarak's. Like most of the financial "investments" our country has made over the past few decades, we may soon realize that the dividends are not to our liking. Keep watching!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)