Do you find that you need coherence in your worldview? Do you need your understanding of reality to harmoniously fit together as best as possible with as few unexplainable inconsistencies as possible? Research suggests that humans in general seek to make storied sense of the world around us (cf., "The Aposotolic Gospel: Narrative (2)"). Many such stories have been constructed throughout history and across cultures to interpret shared human knowledge and experience. The greatest of them seek to function as metanarratives; that is, as overarching stories that individually claim to be absolute and comprehensive in their explanation of human knowledge and experience. Such stories develop over time and find their expression in various religions and philosophies, some ancient, such as the great faiths of the world, and some relatively recent, such as scientific modernism.
Postmodernism, however, categorically rejects the plausibility of a metanarrative. Since all human knowledge is perspectival, postmodernism argues, there can be no metanarrative that is true for all humans. There can only be personal or group narratives, which nevertheless often function as metanarratives for those who subscribe to them. But such subscription is based on a lack of awareness of the limitations of perspectival knowledge and experience. Consequently, the quest for a coherent metanarrative is an exercise in futility. There can only be a fragmented collection of potentially equally valid stories. There is no overarching true story that makes sense of our collective human knowledge and experience. There is no Truth, there is rather a kaleidoscope of variegated "truths."
The Church, on the other hand, has historically claimed that the Christian Bible unabashedly presents the world with a metanarrative that is divinely revealed. Its primary theme is the costly redemption of creation by its Creator. Its key elements involve God's creation of the world crowned by the fashioning of humans in God's image, human rebellion against God, God's purposeful interaction with a chosen people for the ultimate benefit of all humanity, God's incarnational appearance in and departure from this world following his death and resurrection, God's continued interaction with humanity by his Holy Spirit, and his promise to return incarnationally in order to consummate his redemptive plan for creation, particularly humanity.
The challenge for the Church is to coherently expound the biblical metanarrative to each successive generation and era throughout history and around the world in the light of collective human knowledge extant at any given time. The reason this is a challenge is that the sacred writings which comprise the Bible were historically and culturally conditioned. God condescended to reveal universal, eternal truths relevant to his redemptive purposes through the medium of human knowledge and experience extant at the times such revelation was divinely communicated. In other words, eternal redemptive truths were clothed with the particularities of historical-cultural human knowledge and experience, which of course finds its ultimate expression in the historically-culturally conditioned incarnation of the divine Logos.
For example, the scriptures have innumerable references to an ancient phenomenological understanding of cosmology and cosmogony; that is, an understanding of the origin, development, and general structure of the universe that is primarily based on human sensory observation. When human knowledge in the Modern era supplanted the ancient understanding, this produced a crisis for many in the Church who could not discern the distinction between universal, eternal truths revealed in the biblical record and the historically and culturally conditioned medium through which they were transmitted. Consequently, it took two centuries for the Catholic Church to officially acknowledge the validity of Galileo's pioneering heliocentric astronomical research when in 1835 all such works were finally dropped from the Index of Prohibited Books.
Today, however, most Christians read the biblical text with its ancient cosmological references and don't think twice about their incompatibility with present cosmological knowledge. Rather, we typically read such texts as though they are poetic expressions, and we interpret them in the light of present knowledge. But for the original authors such cosmological descriptions were a reflection of their understanding of the universe. The reason we are able to read such texts without epistemological difficulty is because previous generations already labored to adjust their worldview by integrating modern scientific knowledge with the biblical record. We are the heirs of their mental labor, having been bequeathed their integrated worldview.
On a personal level, the greatest challenge many Christians will ever experience with regard to the coherence of their worldview takes place at the time that the reality of God in the person of Jesus is revealed to them by God's Spirit and they experience spiritual conversion through repentance and faith. The profundity of this revelational experience challenges whatever aspects of their worldview did not allow for the validity of God's reality revealed in Christ. However, this will not be the end of the struggle for many believers to integrate contemporary human knowledge and experience with the biblical record. Collective human knowledge continues to grow, presenting new challenges of integration.
The presupposition of a biblical worldview is that all knowledge is ultimately derivative of God. The revelation of Jesus Christ and of Christian scripture must ultimately be compatible with all growth in true knowledge. By true knowledge, I mean that which progressively conforms to an accurate understanding of that which constitutes the reality of God's creation as known and experienced by humanity. Against postmodernism, Christians believe there is ultimate reality, since God is the sole author of all creation. Our perception and understanding of that reality continues to change as humanity's collective knowledge and experience grows. But such epistemological mutability does not indicate an intrinsic inability to construct a coherent metanarrative that encompasses both the physical and metaphysical worlds. Rather, it is merely an indication of the progress of human knowledge and experience with God and his creation, provided of course we are not departing from either the eternal truths of Christian scripture or from a strict adherence to critical research in every branch of human learning.
Consequently, the Church is in desperate need of educated preachers and teachers whose grasp of hermeneutics (the principles of biblical interpretation) enables them to remain faithful to the historic Christian faith and its divinely revealed metanarrative without retreating into a ghetto of epistemological fundamentalism. The challenge is to discern where contemporary knowledge and experience is mere speculation which stands in opposition to biblically revealed eternal truths, and where it is indeed beyond reasonable doubt and in need of integration with the biblical worldview in spite of its apparent contradiction at times with the medium of the ancient historical-cultural context through which the biblical record came into being. In other words, we continue to embrace the truth that God created the universe, but accept the fact that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth even though the culturally conditioned language of the bible purports that it does.
Two questions we must ask ourselves involve two errors which can be observed to have been historically committed by the Church. First, have we rejected some advancements of human knowledge in certain disciplines out of a rigid inability to distinguish between eternal truths regarding redemption in the biblical record and the historically-culturally conditioned medium through which they were given? Second, have we uncritically accepted purported advancements of human knowledge in certain disciplines out of an ignorance of biblically revealed eternal truths regarding redemption and out of a failure to subject such knowledge claims to critical research and analysis? In either case, the cause for such errors is, among other things, intellectual flabbiness.
As Christians, we should seek to glorify God by seeking to understand his revelation and his creation in an integrated, coherent worldview. The explosion of human knowledge that has occurred over the last several centuries challenges us to harmoniously fit new knowledge together with the ancient biblical witness, which we believe is divinely given but historically and culturally conditioned. While the biblical texts do not substantially change in spite of advancements in biblical textual criticism, our knowledge in many academic disciplines continues to grow, develop, and change, sometimes substantially. Hence, biblical and theological reflection is ever necessary in each successive generation in order to present the biblical metanarrative of redemption in a coherent manner that is compatible with the contemporary collective knowledge of humanity.
If we fail to do this, we will fail in both evangelism and discipleship. We will fail in evangelism because many will not be able to make storied sense of the biblical message in light of their prior commitment to reasonable contemporary knowledge. We will also fail in discipleship because many who do accept the biblical message will not be able to integrate their biblical faith with reasonable contemporary knowledge, and so will live fragmented, compartmentalized lives with no worldview coherence. The end result in both cases will be the intellectual and cultural irrelevancy of the Church. Frankly, many portions of the Church already occupy such a position.
fidworks.blogspot.com
21 August, 2010
18 August, 2010
The Apostolic Gospel: Jesus' Identity
The core content of the apostolic gospel as presented in the Book of Acts can be categorized into five groups of information regarding or related to Jesus. This is based on an analysis of twelve relevant texts (2:14-41; 3:12-4:2; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 7:1-60; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 14:8-18; 17:2-3; 17:16-31; 26:1-29; 28:17-31; cf., "The Apostolic Gospel: Core Content (Excursus)"). The first category to be considered will be the identity of Jesus.
Jesus is identified with a variety of titles and ascriptions (see the list below). For the purposes of analysis these can be viewed as touching upon his nature, his authority, his role or function, and his character. In terms of his nature, his humanity is assumed as a foregone conclusion. While his divinity is never explicitly stated, it is clearly and strongly implied by his being called "the Holy and Righteous One," the "Author of Life," and more frequently, simply "Lord." Psalm 2 is quoted and applied to Jesus, identifying him as God's son. Jewish audiences most likely would have understood the implication of these ascriptions; namely, that Jesus was divine in addition to being human. While this would have been problematic for them, Gentiles could have more readily accepted the concept of the divinity of a human. Their stumbling block would have been the exclusivity and preeminence of Jesus' divinity, which is inherent in the apostolic preaching.
Jesus' authority is a dominant theme associated with his identity. He is repeatedly called "Lord," in addition to being identified as the Judge of the living and the dead, and the Prophet who is like unto Moses. Furthermore, he is also identified as the "Son of David," the Messianic-King, which implies the wielding of authority over not only Israel, but all the Gentile nations on behalf of God. He is, in effect, the Father's human vicegerent, who is to be obeyed. All of God's authority is vested in him. Therefore, our fealty belongs preeminently to him above every other source of authority, be it spiritual or human, whether personal, familial, or civil.
The exercise of his authority is of course an aspect of his role or function. Yet the primary emphasis regarding Jesus' role and function revolves around his being the Messiah or Christ, both terms being translations of Χριστός, which literally means "anointed one." In fact, references to Jesus as the Messiah or Christ and as the Savior/Deliverer outnumber references to him as Lord by a margin of two to one. Various views of such a Messiah figure were extant among Jews in the first century, but many of them involved a common constellation of eschatological concepts. These included resurrection from the dead, deliverance from spiritual and natural enemies, the establishment in some form or other of the kingdom of God on earth, and the restoration of God's presence among his people. The apostles never rejected these aspects of messianic hope, but they did understand them to take place in a different manner than that which was typically expected by first century Jews.
The apostolic preaching in Acts clearly presents Jesus as the Messiah who brings about the fulfillment of these hopes. He is the first to rise from the dead, leading the way as the "Prince" or eschatological leader into resurrection life (5:30-31; cf., ἀρχηγὸν in EDNT). His sufferings, death, resurrection, and exaltation have resulted in a deliverance from sin and spiritual enemies now in the present time, and will give rise to a future deliverance from wicked people when he will one day judge the living and the dead. He has restored God's presence (in a significant measure) among his people by pouring out God's Spirit upon all who turn to God through him. In terms of his establishment of God's kingdom on earth, little is explicitly said by the apostles, but much is implied. He is the Lord of all, who has been exalted and is seated at the right hand of God, from whence he shall return to fully establish God's rule on earth. Already this reign is manifested in a measure upon earth as evidenced by the signs, wonders, and miracles which he performs by the Holy Spirit, and by the communities of believers who acknowledge him and demonstrate by their love and deeds the virtues of the kingdom which he himself embodied while on earth.
Lastly, in terms of Jesus' identity, the apostolic preaching in Acts draws attention to his character. Phrases such as "the Holy One," "the Righteous One," and "Holy and Righteous One" underscore his impeccable moral purity (sinlessness) and the perfect uprightness or justice of his soul before God in his interactions with humanity. His designation as "the Holy One" also underscores his set-apartness to God, while his being called "God's servant" underscores his humility and perfect obedience to God. All of this is of course consistent with his nature, and necessary to the fulfillment of his role and the exercise of his authority. He alone is qualified to deliver, restore, and rule God's creation, especially humanity.
In light of the foregoing comments, it is clear that the preaching of Jesus' identity must be a core element of any gospel presentation. Although this goes without saying, it would be worthwhile to evaluate how well we are communicating Jesus' nature, authority, role or function, and character. Of course, any single conversation or address may not allow adequate time to fully develop these aspects of Jesus' identity. Yet, we can also say that until these have been properly addressed, this dimension of the gospel has not been adequately communicated.
Textual References
Messiah / Christ - 2:31, 36, 38; 3:18, 20; 4:10; 10:36; 17:3; 26:23; 28:31
Lord - 2:25, 34, 36; 10:36; 26:15; 28:31
Son of David - 2:30 implied; 13:23, 34
Savior / Deliverer - 5:31; 13:23
Judge (of living & dead) - 10:42; 17:31
Prophet (like Moses) - 3:22
Prince (Leader) - 5:31
Author of Life - 3:15
The Cornerstone - 4:11
Servant of God - 3:13, 26
"Son" of God - 13:33 implied
Holy One - 2:27; 13:35
Righteous One - 7:52
Holy & Righteous One - 3:14
Jesus is identified with a variety of titles and ascriptions (see the list below). For the purposes of analysis these can be viewed as touching upon his nature, his authority, his role or function, and his character. In terms of his nature, his humanity is assumed as a foregone conclusion. While his divinity is never explicitly stated, it is clearly and strongly implied by his being called "the Holy and Righteous One," the "Author of Life," and more frequently, simply "Lord." Psalm 2 is quoted and applied to Jesus, identifying him as God's son. Jewish audiences most likely would have understood the implication of these ascriptions; namely, that Jesus was divine in addition to being human. While this would have been problematic for them, Gentiles could have more readily accepted the concept of the divinity of a human. Their stumbling block would have been the exclusivity and preeminence of Jesus' divinity, which is inherent in the apostolic preaching.
Jesus' authority is a dominant theme associated with his identity. He is repeatedly called "Lord," in addition to being identified as the Judge of the living and the dead, and the Prophet who is like unto Moses. Furthermore, he is also identified as the "Son of David," the Messianic-King, which implies the wielding of authority over not only Israel, but all the Gentile nations on behalf of God. He is, in effect, the Father's human vicegerent, who is to be obeyed. All of God's authority is vested in him. Therefore, our fealty belongs preeminently to him above every other source of authority, be it spiritual or human, whether personal, familial, or civil.
The exercise of his authority is of course an aspect of his role or function. Yet the primary emphasis regarding Jesus' role and function revolves around his being the Messiah or Christ, both terms being translations of Χριστός, which literally means "anointed one." In fact, references to Jesus as the Messiah or Christ and as the Savior/Deliverer outnumber references to him as Lord by a margin of two to one. Various views of such a Messiah figure were extant among Jews in the first century, but many of them involved a common constellation of eschatological concepts. These included resurrection from the dead, deliverance from spiritual and natural enemies, the establishment in some form or other of the kingdom of God on earth, and the restoration of God's presence among his people. The apostles never rejected these aspects of messianic hope, but they did understand them to take place in a different manner than that which was typically expected by first century Jews.
The apostolic preaching in Acts clearly presents Jesus as the Messiah who brings about the fulfillment of these hopes. He is the first to rise from the dead, leading the way as the "Prince" or eschatological leader into resurrection life (5:30-31; cf., ἀρχηγὸν in EDNT). His sufferings, death, resurrection, and exaltation have resulted in a deliverance from sin and spiritual enemies now in the present time, and will give rise to a future deliverance from wicked people when he will one day judge the living and the dead. He has restored God's presence (in a significant measure) among his people by pouring out God's Spirit upon all who turn to God through him. In terms of his establishment of God's kingdom on earth, little is explicitly said by the apostles, but much is implied. He is the Lord of all, who has been exalted and is seated at the right hand of God, from whence he shall return to fully establish God's rule on earth. Already this reign is manifested in a measure upon earth as evidenced by the signs, wonders, and miracles which he performs by the Holy Spirit, and by the communities of believers who acknowledge him and demonstrate by their love and deeds the virtues of the kingdom which he himself embodied while on earth.
Lastly, in terms of Jesus' identity, the apostolic preaching in Acts draws attention to his character. Phrases such as "the Holy One," "the Righteous One," and "Holy and Righteous One" underscore his impeccable moral purity (sinlessness) and the perfect uprightness or justice of his soul before God in his interactions with humanity. His designation as "the Holy One" also underscores his set-apartness to God, while his being called "God's servant" underscores his humility and perfect obedience to God. All of this is of course consistent with his nature, and necessary to the fulfillment of his role and the exercise of his authority. He alone is qualified to deliver, restore, and rule God's creation, especially humanity.
In light of the foregoing comments, it is clear that the preaching of Jesus' identity must be a core element of any gospel presentation. Although this goes without saying, it would be worthwhile to evaluate how well we are communicating Jesus' nature, authority, role or function, and character. Of course, any single conversation or address may not allow adequate time to fully develop these aspects of Jesus' identity. Yet, we can also say that until these have been properly addressed, this dimension of the gospel has not been adequately communicated.
Textual References
Messiah / Christ - 2:31, 36, 38; 3:18, 20; 4:10; 10:36; 17:3; 26:23; 28:31
Lord - 2:25, 34, 36; 10:36; 26:15; 28:31
Son of David - 2:30 implied; 13:23, 34
Savior / Deliverer - 5:31; 13:23
Judge (of living & dead) - 10:42; 17:31
Prophet (like Moses) - 3:22
Prince (Leader) - 5:31
Author of Life - 3:15
The Cornerstone - 4:11
Servant of God - 3:13, 26
"Son" of God - 13:33 implied
Holy One - 2:27; 13:35
Righteous One - 7:52
Holy & Righteous One - 3:14
08 August, 2010
The Apostolic Gospel: Core Content (Excursus)
Before proceeding with a study of the elements of the core content of the apostolic gospel (cf., "The Apostolic Gospel: Core Content"), there is a need for a brief comment regarding the analysis of the data used for this inquiry. As previously mentioned, the Book of Acts written by Luke serves as the primary repository of relevant information for this present study regarding the original message preached by the apostles. Twelve texts in particular stand out for providing specific details in association with explicit accounts of apostolic preaching. These are as follows: 2:14-41; 3:12-4:2; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 7:1-60; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 14:8-18; 17:2-3; 17:16-31; 26:1-29; 28:17-31.
These texts have been analyzed on the basis of four considerations. The first consideration is the most obvious and the most important. It concerns itself with the explicit information that is expressed in the texts themselves. In other words, what do the texts explicitly say? A prima facie reading of the texts lends itself to a categorization of information into five groups (cf., "The Apostolic Gospel: Core Content"); namely, Jesus' identity, first coming, second coming, and prophetic fulfillment, and our existential response to him.
There are, however, three other considerations to factor in to the analysis of the texts. Each of these involves information that is understood to be implied. The first of these involves Luke's compression of data. For example, in many of the twelve texts under study, explicit mention is made of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. In others, however, mention is only made of his having "suffered" or only of his having risen from the dead. It would be incorrect to suppose that the crucifixion was completely omitted from every instance reported in which no explicit mention of it is made. Rather, Luke was merely compressing the data presented in other places in Acts by employing briefer designations. Considering that Acts serves as a companion literary work to Luke's earlier Gospel, it is understandable that Luke should also compress data in Acts that refers back to information already presented in his Gospel.
The second consideration involving implied information is similar to compression. It concerns precedent. A careful reading of Acts reveals that Luke provides greater detail in several matters earlier in his work than later on. For example, water baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit are explicitly mentioned in several of the earlier accounts of believing responses to the apostolic gospel. However, there are numerous other such accounts throughout Acts which make no mention of one or the other, or both. Are we to assume that when these are not mentioned people were not baptized in water or did not receive the Holy Spirit? Of course not. Luke has established these two experiences as normal and customary. Consequently, they should be assumed in the other accounts as well by way of precedent.
Analysis of the texts then requires careful attention to the detail that is given in several of the earlier accounts of the communication of the apostolic gospel in order to evaluate whether any elements not mentioned in later accounts should be assumed by way of precedent. A consideration of the elements' logical centrality to what is communicated, of their literary prominence in the accounts in which they appear, and of their connection to Luke's emphases in his Gospel must be taken into account.
The third consideration involving implied information concerns the knowledge base of those to whom the apostolic gospel was presented as recorded in Acts. Some knowledge is given us by Luke regarding the audiences who heard the various gospel proclamations. Because of this we can have a general idea as to what their knowledge base likely was in relation to the gospel information presented to them. For example, a Jewish audience of the first century would likely have held to a constellation of beliefs in association with the eschatological "kingdom of God." These would have involved a Messiah-King, the resurrection of the dead, an outpouring of God's Spirit, the vindication of Israel, and a judgment of the Gentile nations. Consequently, references to either the kingdom of God or to key elements of its associated Jewish belief constellation would likely have implied in the minds of the listeners the various elements as a whole.
In addition, there is the issue of the knowledge base of the intended recipient(s) of the Book of Acts. Although no scholarly agreement has been reached concerning the "Theophilus" to whom Acts was explicitly written (1:1), we do know that Luke's Gospel is identified as having been written to the same audience (Lk 1:3). Consequently, its contents should be assumed as comprising at least a minimal background of knowledge to the apostolic preaching presented in Acts for the unknown Theophilus and the wider audience for whom both works were surely intended.
Given the foregoing considerations, we can now proceed with a study of the five categories of core elements of the apostolic gospel which concern Jesus of Nazareth.
These texts have been analyzed on the basis of four considerations. The first consideration is the most obvious and the most important. It concerns itself with the explicit information that is expressed in the texts themselves. In other words, what do the texts explicitly say? A prima facie reading of the texts lends itself to a categorization of information into five groups (cf., "The Apostolic Gospel: Core Content"); namely, Jesus' identity, first coming, second coming, and prophetic fulfillment, and our existential response to him.
There are, however, three other considerations to factor in to the analysis of the texts. Each of these involves information that is understood to be implied. The first of these involves Luke's compression of data. For example, in many of the twelve texts under study, explicit mention is made of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. In others, however, mention is only made of his having "suffered" or only of his having risen from the dead. It would be incorrect to suppose that the crucifixion was completely omitted from every instance reported in which no explicit mention of it is made. Rather, Luke was merely compressing the data presented in other places in Acts by employing briefer designations. Considering that Acts serves as a companion literary work to Luke's earlier Gospel, it is understandable that Luke should also compress data in Acts that refers back to information already presented in his Gospel.
The second consideration involving implied information is similar to compression. It concerns precedent. A careful reading of Acts reveals that Luke provides greater detail in several matters earlier in his work than later on. For example, water baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit are explicitly mentioned in several of the earlier accounts of believing responses to the apostolic gospel. However, there are numerous other such accounts throughout Acts which make no mention of one or the other, or both. Are we to assume that when these are not mentioned people were not baptized in water or did not receive the Holy Spirit? Of course not. Luke has established these two experiences as normal and customary. Consequently, they should be assumed in the other accounts as well by way of precedent.
Analysis of the texts then requires careful attention to the detail that is given in several of the earlier accounts of the communication of the apostolic gospel in order to evaluate whether any elements not mentioned in later accounts should be assumed by way of precedent. A consideration of the elements' logical centrality to what is communicated, of their literary prominence in the accounts in which they appear, and of their connection to Luke's emphases in his Gospel must be taken into account.
The third consideration involving implied information concerns the knowledge base of those to whom the apostolic gospel was presented as recorded in Acts. Some knowledge is given us by Luke regarding the audiences who heard the various gospel proclamations. Because of this we can have a general idea as to what their knowledge base likely was in relation to the gospel information presented to them. For example, a Jewish audience of the first century would likely have held to a constellation of beliefs in association with the eschatological "kingdom of God." These would have involved a Messiah-King, the resurrection of the dead, an outpouring of God's Spirit, the vindication of Israel, and a judgment of the Gentile nations. Consequently, references to either the kingdom of God or to key elements of its associated Jewish belief constellation would likely have implied in the minds of the listeners the various elements as a whole.
In addition, there is the issue of the knowledge base of the intended recipient(s) of the Book of Acts. Although no scholarly agreement has been reached concerning the "Theophilus" to whom Acts was explicitly written (1:1), we do know that Luke's Gospel is identified as having been written to the same audience (Lk 1:3). Consequently, its contents should be assumed as comprising at least a minimal background of knowledge to the apostolic preaching presented in Acts for the unknown Theophilus and the wider audience for whom both works were surely intended.
Given the foregoing considerations, we can now proceed with a study of the five categories of core elements of the apostolic gospel which concern Jesus of Nazareth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)