[draft: Sep 2/2012]
(This is a
different question than 'Was Jesus a Failed Messiah?')
Hi
Glen(sic) Miller,
I recently discovered your excellent site when I was
looking up arguments to go against an atheist with, and I
was and am impressed with the high level of research and
time that you put into each of the hard questions you
tackle. So when I came across a blog post on a forum that
really bothered me, I felt that you may do the best job of
refuting it.
My apologetics question is basically, "Was Jesus a Failed
Eschatological Prophet?" This is not just asking about a
few verses, but about the purpose of Jesus' ministry and
its "apparent" unfulfillment. Numerous references by Jesus
(and other New Testament writers) to a nearing of the end
times have always bothered me in the back of my mind, but
this blog post (which I will copy in its entirety here)
really shakes my faith. It basically tries to show that
the thrust of Jesus' message was that His end-times
kingdom was coming very soon, and all his followers
like Paul and John believed this. Then when this
didn't come true, the church distanced itself from the
end times, such as in the last Gospel, John, where its
message focuses more on eternal life than the
apocalypse. I had originally came across
this post in a forum because I was bothered with Jesus'
statement in Matthew 26:64 that the high priest would see
Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven. Yet this post I
found was much broader in its attacks on Jesus and the New
Testament message.
By the way, I did search your topics list to see if you
addressed this issue, and your article to a Finland reader
(https://Christianthinktank.com/qaim.html)
was very helpful. I do not ask that you repeat your
responses from that article, but only I wish that you would
answer some of the other arguments mentioned in the blog
post that has been bothering me, which is below (I apologize
for the length of this post -- but I'm truly troubled by
it):
PART FOUR
==================== (see Part
One for series header)
Do the passages in the rest of the NT evidence some 'apocalyptic urgency' and/or 'interim ethic', and if so, does it only make sense (or make 'more sense') if the NT authors believed in a first-century eschaton, than if they did not have a concrete time expectation in mind??
Here
we
want to look at passages which look like 'urgency' and/or
interim-ethics passages outside
of the Synoptic Gospels. [But it won't
include the Gospel of John]
The
blogger
maintains that such an interim-ethic is present "all
the way through the NT corpus", but
this seems like a
possible discontinuity in his/her argument.
IF Jesus taught such an ethic (which He didn't according to
our investigation of the Synoptics) that was based upon a
40-years-or-less predicted Eschaton, AND IF the church
became embarrassed by this failed prediction, then the
interim ethic should NOT show up in any post-70 AD
literature but SHOULD show up in any pre-70 AD literature.
The blogger (probably) believes that the Gospel of Matthew
and Luke were written late enough for this embarrassment to
be a factor (the 'watering down' argument for the 'delay'
passages), but both Gospels still have the passages he/she
maintains are 'interim ethics'. I would suspect that he/she
would consider Acts (by Luke), 2 Peter, the Pastorals,
Revelation, and probably the Book of Hebrews to be post-70ad
writings too. [The Gospel of John would no doubt be
considered late too, since it is used later as an example of
watering-down.]
So--under
this
hypothesis--these later writings should NOT have
interim-ethics passage in them, since they would already be
'in the period of embarrassment' and therefore 'watered
down'. This means that the claim 'all
the way through the NT corpus' would be
inconsistent with the basic premise of 'deliberate
dilution'.
If
the
later writings DO have 'interim-ethics' passages (of the
type suggested by the blogger), then this would count as
data against
the 'so embarrassed they had to water it down' part of the
hypothesis.
Conversely,
if
the presumable pre-70 AD writings (e.g. Romans, Corinthians,
Thessalonians, etc) do NOT contain the blogger's version of
'urgency/interim ethic' passages, then this counts as data
against the 'Jesus must have taught an interim ethic' part
of the hypothesis.
Of
course,
the 70 AD 'cut off date' I use is not hard-and-fast, since
we would presume that discouragement (and therefore the
temptation to 'backpedal') would have started much earlier
than that (maybe in the late 40s?), and that the destruction
of Jerusalem in the 70's might have 're-energized' the
expectation, if it was interpreted by the Church as the
'first signs' of the BIG Eschaton. So, my point about the
timing is not necessarily a strong or decisive one, since
there are other factors that would/could influence each
writer's sensitivity to such issues.
Let's
keep
this in mind as we look through the NT documents.
By
now--if
you have stayed with me through all the prior verbiage
(smile)--you should be aware that the term 'interim ethic'
is correct
in one sense (i.e., all of life has to be
lived in awareness that life is finite--and therefore that
eternal ethics should be priorities) and incorrect
in another (i.e. today's decisions should be
made in expectation that the entire social, human, and
cosmic order will be destroyed before the end of one's
lifetime).
For
a
concrete example of this, take me...
As
I
write this, I am about to turn 62 years of age. I make
decisions and take actions now, based upon my 'upcoming'
death. I have no idea WHEN I will die (if the Lord tarry),
but I still have to take appropriate steps for my family
(e.g. Will, insurance, instructions, etc). I am aware of my
'upcoming' death, and I am living in light of it--I am
living in an 'interim' period, which DOES concretely affect
my priorities and choices. I think in terms of how to 'leave
something behind' for others to leverage for their
generation. I think in terms of making sure my 'personal
effects' will not be a source of division or embarrassment
or confusion for those I leave behind. I still start 'long
term projects' (which might outlive me), but I make sure
that I try to 'add a little value' every day--in case it is
my last. I live in the present,
in light of the end
of that present sometime in the future.
I do not make huge changes to my life, since I accept 'where
I am' as something that my Lord has given to me as a gift,
assigned to me as a responsibility, and provided me with as
a means to help others. I keep working at my job, I keep
doing my exercises for my shoulder problem and plantar
fasciitis, and
I keep postponing going to see my most treasured of friends
and family (until things 'settle down' a bit more...sigh)...
It
is
a little like an illustration I ran across in 1994--which
profoundly impressed me:
"A man was
watching his eighty-year-old neighbor planting a small peach
tree. He inquired of him as follows: 'You don't expect to
eat peaches from that tree, do you?' The old man rested on
his spade. He said, 'No, at my age I know I won't. But all
my life I have enjoyed peaches--never from a tree I planted
myself. I'm just trying to pay the other fellows who planted
the trees for me.'" [Illustrations
Unlimited. James Hewett (ed).
TyndaleHouse:1988, p.259--under the topic 'Gratitude']
I
will call this a "Management-Type"
interim ethic, in which all resources are the present are
managed closely for both short and long-term impact, and
basic relationships maintain some core elements of
continuity with the immediate past (e.g. job stays the same,
but perspective on it changes).
On
the
other hand, if I knew with certainty (or firmly believed
based on medical science) that I only had 6 weeks or 3
months to live, my actions might be considerably different.
I expect that I would change my work status, would travel
more to see family, would stop exercising, etc. I doubt I
would continue 'planting peach trees'. The practices I would
employ in this situation would also be an 'interim ethic'
but would look radically different from the one I currently
operate under--before my Lord.
I
will call this an "Upheaval-Type"
interim ethic, in which all relationships (with people,
goods, and society) are radically changed, discarded, and/or
rearranged --without major continuity with the immediate
past (e.g., one quits their job).
So,
when
we come across scholars and commentators who use the phrase
'interim ethic' in describing a NT writer's perspective, we
will have to ask WHICH VERSION of an 'interim ethic' is
it--the version that lives in face of a
time-unknown--but-certain Eschaton (in my terminology, "a management-type
interim ethic"), or the version that lives in
expectation of a 'full Eschaton' before one's death (in my
terminology, "an upheaval-type
interim ethic"). If they contrast their understanding of the
'interim ethic' in the passage under discussion with some
kind of 'escapist' or 'withdrawal' or 'short-term' ethic,
then we will know that they are NOT using the term in the
same way as does Schweitzer/Weiss/blogger. We need to be
sure that this is the case, so that we are not accidentally
slandering or misrepresenting the blogger's position.
[Of
course,
we have noted earlier in the series that modern scholarship
has basically taken the position that NT ethics are NOT
based on eschatological 'timing' or apocalyptic
within-40-years expectations.]
All
of
the synoptic passages we examined above reflected a management-type
interim ethic (even when Jesus used more colorful, stronger,
more vivid imagery--e.g. hating family, self-mutilation).
Strictly
speaking,
we really do
not have to examine ALL the NT authors before
we can decide on the verity/falsity of "all
the way through the NT corpus"--we only need
to surface a 'few' cases where it does not apply, for the
position to be judged as inaccurate. But we will try to
examine the 'bulk' (but not all) of the writers/books, to
see how 'even' the NT orientation is.
We
will
look first at the
passage in Paul (1 Cor 7), since it
is mentioned by your blogger friend.
Chapter
7
is Paul's reply to several questions the Corinthian church
asked him in a letter (7.1, 7.25, 8.1, etc). There are two
parts to this passage: the general 'stay-where-you-are'
part (17-24) and the marital 'present distress/time is
short' part (25-40).
First Part: The general 'stay where you are' part
reads like this:
"Only
let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned
to him, and to which God has called
him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was
anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let
him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was
anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him
not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision
counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the
commandments of God. 20 Each
one should remain in the condition in which he was
called. 21 Were you a bondservant
when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you
can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the
opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord
as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he
who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become
bondservants of men. 24 So, brothers, in
whatever condition each was called, there let him
remain with God."
Does
this
passage tell the Corinthians to "not leave one's slave
condition, since the end of all things is at hand"?
Of
course
not--it says the opposite, that the current condition is an
'assignment' and a 'calling' from God. They are not
supposed to 'leave all' and make a radical change, and there
is no reference whatsoever to anything about the 'end of all
things'. And, it also says that if freedom IS available,
then it is OK to seek it.
(The
blogger
must have read the terminology of the next passage back into
this one--but the text is quite clear that it is not about
the Eschaton, but rather it is about being used of God where
one is at the time of calling. Of
course, God changes our circumstances under providence,
guidance, and (sometimes--sigh) discipline, but this passage
states the 'baseline' of being faithful in whatever
situation one was when the Lord began working inside that
life/situation.)
And
we
should note that--apart from the initial core apostles--the
people whose lives were touched by Jesus in the Synoptic
passages we looked at were generally
told to do the same--to go back to their family, to
their city, or to their work. They were
transformed by the encounter with Jesus, and told to
're-engage' with a world that was (and has always been since
the Fall) dying... Some were called to 'vocational ministry'
(Matthew the tax-collector) and some were call to
'avocational ministry' (Zaccheus the tax-collector).
This
passage
singles out two major aspects of one's first-century social
identity: Jew or Gentile, Slave or Free.
The
next
part will then apply this principle to marital status--and
add some helpful perspective on dealing with the practical
issues of life.
Second Part: The marital 'distress/time is short'
passage reads like this:
"Now
concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the
Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s
mercy is trustworthy. 26 I
think
that in view of the present distress
it is good for a person to remain as he is.
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be
free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if
a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet
those who marry will have worldly troubles,
and I would spare you that. 29 This
is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short.
From now on, let
those who have wives live as though they had none,
30 and those who mourn as though they were
not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they
were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though
they had no goods, 31 and those who deal with
the world as though they had no dealings with it.
For the present form of this world is passing away. 32 I
want you to be free from anxieties. The
unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord,
how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is
anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,
34 and his
interests
are divided. And the unmarried or
betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord,
how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman
is anxious about worldly things, how to please her
husband. 35 I
say this for your own benefit, not to lay any
restraint upon you, but to promote good order and
to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. 36 If
anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward
his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to
be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no
sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his
heart, being under no necessity but having his desire
under control, and has determined this in his heart, to
keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So
then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he
who refrains from marriage will do even better.
39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he
lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be
married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains
as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of
God. "
Let's
make
a couple of observations about this text:
One. This is addressed to engaged people
first--there was a question from the church (apparently
about whether to consummate the marriage or not?). The
church was obviously having a difficult time with
understanding the relationship between righteousness and
physical/sensual life.
Two. The reference to 'present distress' is
actually about 'staying
where you are' again--do not initiate 'big
changes' without major warrant (e.g, do NOT 'leave
everything'!). Something in the 'present distress' makes it
practical to either
stay married or stay single. It is NOT
connected with a wholesale anti-marriage 'interim ethic' at
all.
Three. Paul
specifically says that his comments
are NOT derived from the words of Jesus
(whether written down or not at this point in time), and therefore
NOT
connected with any of Jesus' allegedly interim-ethic
teachings. Paul does allude to Jesus'
teaching that celibacy is not given to all men and women
(Jesus in Matthew 19.12 and Paul here in 7.7), but doesn't
refer to or allude to any of the 'leave/follow' type of
texts of the gospels.
Four. Everything in this passage seems to be about
'distracting
anxieties' and 'eternal
priorities'--themes we have seen numerous
times in our examples of the Synoptic
passages.
Five. Paul's phrase 'present
distress' doesn't seem to be connected to persecutions
or the major eschatological crisis at all. In
fact, the Corinthians seem to be experiencing "a perceived
state of well-being or even positive euphoria" (BKC) as seen in 4.8 (Already
you have all you want! Already you have become rich!
Without us you have become kings! And would that you did
reign, so that we might share the rule with you!).
There is no mention of difficulties (except moral
failures...) or persecution for the church, so the phrase
'present distress' must refer to something 'less
theological'(?) than eschatological suffering or
persecution. More modern interpreters think that perhaps it
was the economic distress of a famine (which could
be interpreted as a 'sign' but Paul does not make that
connection here explicit) that has economic implications for
getting married:
"Because
of
the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to
remain as you are (7:26). The “present
crisis” or “dislocation” may refer to a period of
food shortages in the Mediterranean.
At this time a certain Tiberius Claudius Dinippus was
honored by elements within Corinth for acting as curator of
the grain supply on three different occasions. The Roman
historian Tacitus
has also recorded food shortages at this time.
Food shortages could induce social unrest and even riots.
Such food shortages as well as earthquakes were seen by
Christians as indicators that Christ would return... But if you do marry, you
have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not
sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in
this life (7:28). Paul’s advice stems
from his understanding of “the present crisis” (7:26), which he thinks will bring food shortages and
other traumas. Marriage is not
sinful, but Paul recognizes that if Corinthian Christians
marry in the face of the present crisis, their children may
suffer." [Arnold, C. E. (2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible
Backgrounds Commentary Volume 3: Romans to Philemon. (139).
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.]
"Some
understand the phrase “because
of the present necessity” (διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν
ἀνάγκην, dia tēn enestōsan anankēn)
to be a reference to the end-time woes that
will engulf the world and are already portended in the
sufferings of Christians (Barrett 1968: 175; Conzelmann
1975: 132). This rendering understands ἐνεστώς (enestōs) to
signify “that which is about to become present” (see BDAG
337). Paul
urges them to stay single in light of the imminent
coming of Christ, which is preceded by a time of woe.
But his use of the participle ἐνεστώς always refers to
what is already present, which makes the rendering
“impending” problematic (Gal. 1:4,
“present evil age”; cf. Heb. 9:9, “the present time”). In
Rom. 8:38 and 1 Cor. 3:22, ἐνεστῶτα (enestōta, things
present) is an antonym of μέλλοντα (mellonta, things about
to come). This usage of the participle suggests that he
refers to something they are already experiencing.
Consequently, some opt to translate the phrase as “the present
difficulty,” referring to the pinch of present
circumstances instead of impending end-time disasters.
... The word ἀνάγκη (anankē) has a broad range of usages. It
can refer to any
“necessity” or “compulsion,” outer or inner,
brought on by a variety of circumstances (BDAG 61).
Commentators frequently cite other literature in which
the word ἀνάγκη appears in connection with end-time
events (Conzelmann 1975: 132 n. 13). It
refers to the catastrophic events connected specifically to
the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21:23. But
Paul uses it to connote moral necessity (Rom. 13:5),
divine compulsion (1 Cor. 9:16), duress (2 Cor. 9:7;
Philem. 14), calamities or disasters (plural; 2 Cor.
6:4; 12:10), and distress (1 Thess. 3:7). In 7:37, the
one who “does not have necessity” refers to one who is
able to control his sexual desire without experiencing
frustration (see Gager 1970:
330–33). ... If ἐνεστώς means “present” and ἀνάγκη means
“calamity,” then Paul may have in
mind something far more mundane and local than the
end-time cataclysm. He may be
alluding to persecution that has befallen the community (cf.
2 Cor. 1:6; Acts 18:1–17; so Grundmann, TDNT 1:346).
Little evidence exists in the letter, however, to
suggest that the Corinthians were having to cope with
any open hostility from their neighbors. Winter
(1991a; 1997e: 331) identifies the “present crisis” as a famine
that gripped the city and caused serious economic
deprivation (see also Blue 1991; Kistemaker 1993: 239). Winter
translates it “the present dislocation” to describe the
social unrest that the grain shortage created.
Laughery (1997: 111–12) concedes that there may have been a
famine but doubts that it was the genesis of the Corinthian
questions. Indeed, one
cannot deny the apocalyptic tenor of the whole passage,
with its references to the “compressed time” (7:29) and
“the form of this world passing away” (7:31).
It may be that Paul uses the word “present” because he
assumes that the end-time afflictions are already happening,
which “portended a speedy crisis” (Findlay 1910: 831). The
suggestion by Godet (1886: 371) that it refers to the “whole
state of things between the first and second coming of
Christ” (see also Grosheide 1953: 175) seems too amorphous.
Christians
are always at odds with the world because of its alien
worldview and always subject to its abuse, but Paul
seems to have something more definite in mind.
It is most likely that he
has in view a present crisis (perhaps the famine)
interpreted as an end-time event." [Garland,
D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on
the New Testament (323–324). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic.
”Crisis.
Used three times in 1 Corinthians, this word can refer to a
disaster, as here, or to the actions people are compelled to
take because of such situations, as in 7:37 and 9:16.
Because in Luke 21:23 Jesus uses this word in an apocalyptic
context and because of the mention of a “short time” in
7:29, interpreters
are inclined to conclude that Paul had the impending
eschatological crisis of Christ’s return in mind here
(Barrett 1968:175; Bruce 1971:74; Conzelmann 1975:132;
Robertson and Plummer 1911:152; Schweitzer 1931:311). More current interpreters
are influenced by the work of Blue (1991:221–239) and Winter
(1989:86–106) to consider that Paul may
have had in mind a famine that the city of Corinth was
facing or some other local, non-eschatological crisis
that induced suffering.
Incorporation of something local and real to the Corinthians
without eliminating the general eschatological climate
created by the impact of the gospel probably best represents
Paul’s concern expressed in using this word (Fee 1987:329;
Garland 2003:324; Thiselton 2000:573)." [Baker, W. (2009). 1
Corinthians. In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Volume 15:
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians (111). Carol Stream, IL:
Tyndale House Publishers.]
Six. Paul's use of (seemingly) apocalyptic
terminology in 29-31 (including the 'time is shortened'
phrase) reveals a management-type
interim
ethic instead of the (hypothesis-expected)
upheaval-type interim ethic:
"But the
question remains, How
is this related to Paul’s eschatology,
especially to vv. 29–31? It
is commonly argued, or assumed, that Paul is urging them
to stay single in light of the imminent coming of Christ,
which will be accompanied by a time of great woe. But that seems to miss
Paul’s own eschatological perspective both in vv.
29–31 and elsewhere. In 2 Thess. 3:6–15 he
specifically urged exactly the opposite with regard to
work, in a context where the alleged coming of the Day
of the Lord (2:2 had perhaps caused some to cease
working. But more importantly, in
Paul’s view the End has already begun; the form of this
world is already
passing away (v. 31). Christians
do not thereby abandon the world; they are simply not to
let this age dictate their present existence. They are
already marked for eternity—in the world but not of it.
On the other hand, until the final consummation they also
may expect “distress” and “trouble” to be their common lot
(1 Thess. 3:3–4)." [Fee, G. D. (1987). The First Epistle to
the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament (329–330). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.]
"Paul
is not saying, as some scholars have claimed, that
Christ will definitely come within the Corinthians’
lifetimes. The purpose of 1 Corinthians, in
large part, is to
encourage Christians to attend to the kinds of daily
affairs that would be unimportant if Christ were
returning within weeks or months.
Thus Paul provides practical teaching concerning marriage
(7:1–16, 25–40); what type of food to eat at a dinner party
(10:23–11:1); collecting money for the needy (16:1–4); and
future travel plans (16:5–11). Like other NT writers, Paul
considers all of time from the cross forward to be the “last
days” (Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:2; James 5:3) and counsels
Christians always to live in the light of Christ’s certain
return at an unforeseen moment (1 Cor. 3:13; 15:52; see also
Matt. 24:44; 25:13; Mark 13:32–37; Luke 21:34–36; Rom.
13:11–14; 1 Thess. 5:1–9). Paul’s
point here is simply that the form of this world, or its
day-to-day affairs, is not eternal.
Christians should prioritize their human relationships,
material possessions, and worldly dealings accordingly. See
also Matt. 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–30; Rom. 12:2; 1 John
2:16–17." [Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible
(2201). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.]
Seven. The phrase
'time is short(ened)' is generally understood to refer to
the character
of the present time, not its
duration
or amount.
It is about a perspective that the ascetic, hyper-spiritual
(yet deeply flesh-ish) Corinthian church needed to adopt:
"The crucial
sentence is the basic premise, “the
time is short”; but its intent is not at all
easy to determine. Ordinarily,
“time” is considered in a quantitative way to
refer to “the amount of time left for Christians to do what
they have to do.” While
there is perhaps a dimension of that involved, more
likely the noun “time” refers to the eschatological
event of salvation, which has been set in
motion by Christ’s death and resurrection and the gift of
the Spirit. Their “present distress” is evidence that this
time “has been compressed” or “is foreshortened,” that
God’s people stand at the end of history, as it were.
This does not
so much mean that the final consummation is imminent
(although in a sense that is always true for God’s
people) as that the future, which was set in motion by
the event of Christ and the Spirit, has been “shortened”
so that it is now in plain view. And that
will absolutely condition how one lives in the present. Paul’s
concern,
therefore, is not with the amount
of time they have left, but with the
radical new perspective the “foreshortened future” gives one
with regard to the present
age. Those who have a definite future and see it with
clarity live in the present with radically altered values as
to what counts and what does not. In that sense it calls for
those who want to get married to rethink what that may mean,
especially in light of the present distress. .. It may well be that this
is a strong word against the Corinthians’ general
tendency to live and think on the basis of their
former pagan past, which generally lacked such an
eschatological perspective. Their outlook was that of
having arrived (see 4:8)—not in an eschatological
sense, but in a “spiritual” sense that made them
ascetic with regard to the present age. Paul
thus wants them to rethink their existence in terms of
“the shortened time,” with its certain future that they yet
await (cf. 1:7). 29b–31a
This understanding of the basic premise seems to be borne
out by the rhetoric of the purpose clause that follows. God
has “compressed the time of salvation” so that “from
now on” believers might have a totally new perspective
as to their relationship with the world. This
perspective is given in the form of five illustrations,
expressed in the strongest kind of dialectical rhetoric. Taken
literally, the five “as if not” clauses become
absurdities, not to mention contradictory to what Paul
clearly said earlier about marriage (vv. 2–6) and what
he will elsewhere say about sorrowing and rejoicing
(Rom. 12:15). But they are not to be
taken literally; they are rhetoric, pure and simple. The
question is, What is the point of such rhetoric?
These clauses
display clear affinities both with Stoicism and Jewish
apocalyptic. But Paul is advocating
neither the Stoic’s “aloofness” from the world nor the
apocalyptist’s “escape” from the world.
What he is calling for is a radical new stance toward the
world, predicated on the saving event of Christ that has
marked off our existence in a totally new way. Just as in
Christ the slave is a freedman and the free man is a slave
(vv. 22–23) because one’s existence is determined by God, so
now one does not so much live “detached” from the world
(after all, Paul expects the Corinthians to continue
doing all five of these things) as totally free from its
control. Therefore, one lives in the world
just as the rest—married, sorrowing, rejoicing, buying,
making use of it—but
none of these determines one’s life. The
Christian is marked
by eternity; therefore, he or she is not
under the dominating power of those things that dictate the
existence of others." [Fee, G. D. (1987). The First Epistle
to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the
New Testament (338–341). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.]
"The
periphrastic participle συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν (synestalmenos
estin) has been taken to mean that the time is “short,”
“shortened,”
or
“compressed.” If
it means “short,” then marriage is inadvisable because
time is running out before Christ’s imminent return.
The great tribulation and the transformation of all things
is at hand. If it means that the prescribed time “has been
shortened” (Weiss 1910: 197), then it may reflect the divine
shortening of the time until the end for the sake of the
elect (cf. Mark 13:20; 2 Pet. 3:12; Barn. 4:3). The same
considerations apply; the time left at our disposal for
worldly endeavors is diminished. The verb συστέλλειν
(systellein) can also mean to “compress,” “contract,”
“make compact,” “gather in,” and I choose to translate
the phrase “The time has been compressed.”
Deming (1995b: 184) translates it “Time is at a premium” or
“Opportunity is tight” and takes it to mean that time for
such things as marriage and the activities listed in what
follows has been compressed. Deming believes that Paul
emphasizes that the hardships brought on by the end will be
caused “by the disruption of the world’s infrastructure
leading to social and economic upheaval.” Rengstorf (TDNT
7:596–97), however, thinks that Paul may have adopted a
proverbial saying (cf. m. ˒Abot 2:15) that does not refer to
future tribulations. ... Paul
is not concerned about the duration of time (χρόνος,
chronos; cf. 7:39) but the character of the time. He
is talking not about how little time is left but about
how Christ’s death and resurrection have changed how
Christians should look at the time that is left.
He is not
recommending that one should take the short-term view of
life,
nor is he offering an interim ethic for the impending
end-time tribulation. Instead, he
understands the compressing
of the time to mean that the future outcome of this
world has become crystal clear. The time has
been “foreshortened,” which means that “the event of Christ
has now compressed the time in such a way that the future
has been brought forward so as to be clearly visible” (Fee
1987: 339 n. 14). ... Paul
argues that because the end is plainly in sight, Christians
should see and judge more clearly what is and what is not
important. Christians stand on a mountaintop, as it were,
where distances are foreshortened. From this vantage point,
they can see the termination of history on earth and its
goal. They can discern what really matters, and they should
conduct their lives accordingly. The term τὸ λοιπόν (to
loipon), which Lietzmann (1949: 34) characterizes as
standing lost between the sentences, does not go with what
precedes to mean, “from this point forward the time is
short” (contra Weiss 1910: 198). This term usually begins
sentences, and here it means “henceforth,” “from now on.” It
refers to the remaining time of the kairos (Wimbush 1987:
27; Schrage 1995: 171 n. 679). Paul then lists five
examples, beginning with marriage, in
which the Christians’ distinctive vision of the end
should impinge on what they do henceforth in the
present." [Garland, D. E. (2003). 1
Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New
Testament (328–329). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
"kairos
[2540, 2789]. As in 7:5, the distinction between this word
and chronos
(“season” or “period of time,” 7:39) should
be observed (Garland 2003:328; Soards
1999:167). It refers here to a
distinctive moment in time, perhaps with an emphasis on
opportunity for the gospel (Thiselton
2000:579) and/or on the fact that the eschatological period
has already begun (Garland 2003:328; Talbert 1987:49)."
[Baker, W. (2009). 1 Corinthians. In Cornerstone Biblical
Commentary, Volume 15: 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians (111).
Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]
"It is
fundamental that Paul is not now advocating a moral
asceticism of a kind which he has questioned rather than
promoted from 7:2 to 7:28. Furthermore, although he
undoubtedly appeals to a theology
of eschatological imminence, this in no
way presupposes a chronology
of eschatological imminence. ... Witherington’s work on
eschatology also sheds light on these verses. As
we have already argued, he underlines the point that
συνεσταλμένος means shortened, not short.
This adds a dimension of indefiniteness,
as well as divine action. In v. 31 “Paul is not speaking of
some future apocalyptic event, but of an eschatological
process already begun.” Although these verses imply an ethic
“affected” by the “possible shortness of the time left,” the
redemptive events which took place in the death and
resurrection of Christ remain “decisive”: these have
“shortened the time,” leaving believers ignorant of how long
they have before the parousia will finally cut short all
activity in this world. Hence “Paul is not advocating withdrawal from,
or renunciation of, the world. Rather, the world is
the sphere where the believer is called to obey God’s
will."" [Thiselton, A. C. (2000).
The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the
Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary
(582). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.]
Eight. Paul's later
statements about 'those
having wives as having none' is part of a
're-prioritization' ethic that sounds very, very much
like a version of Jesus' "hate your family"
and "renounce
everything" passages. As such, they are
consistent with the interpretations we have given for them
above--they are eternal
ethics, brought into sharp relief because of
God's decisive action in the Incarnation and Cross. And
they--like Jesus' words in the Synoptics--are pre-Jesus (cf.
2 Esdras
16.40-48).
"With a poetic
rhythm, Paul discharges a fusillade of commands to show how
a clear-sighted end-time perspective should affect the way
Christians live. Fee (1987: 337) makes a vital point that
might be obscured by an emphasis on the present crisis as
the key to Paul’s advice not to marry: troubles do not
determine the Christian’s existence; Christ does.
Paul does not insist that they should live as if the end
is tomorrow: “Rather, in view of the ‘time’
and the fact that the ‘form’ of this present world is
passing away, he calls for a
radically new understanding of their relationship to the world”
(Fee 1987: 336). Fee (1987: 337–38) correctly takes the
pulse of Paul’s argument in commenting that Paul wants them
to rethink their existence and to live “within an
eschatological framework as over against, presumably, their
ascetic-spiritual one.” Paul does not argue, “The end might
come tomorrow with its terrible afflictions; therefore, do
not get married.” He argues instead, “The
end has broken into the present, and it requires a
reevaluation of all that we do in a
world already on its last legs.” Humans “cannot live in a
vacuum even while awaiting the eschaton”; they need
“structures and concrete rules of conduct” (Rordorf 1969:
199). Paul offers not so much concrete rules as an orientation
to this earthbound life that allows them to live in this
world without being hypnotized
and controlled
by its norms and values." [Garland, D. E. (2003). 1
Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament (327–328). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
"This
detachment from temporal matters should characterize all
Christians but it was more complex for the married (cf. Mark
13:12) for whom, nonetheless, devotion to their Lord
should occupy first place in life (Luke 14:26).
Paul certainly was not recommending abandoning marital
duties (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3-5). [BKC]
"Hear
my words, O my people; prepare for battle, and in the
midst of the calamities be like strangers on the earth.
41 Let the one who sells be like one who will flee;
let the one who buys be like one who will lose;
42 let the one who does business be like one who
will not make a profit; and let the one who builds a
house be like one who will not live in it; 43 let
the one who sows be like one who will not reap; so also
the one who prunes the vines, like one who will not
gather the grapes; 44 those who marry, like those
who will have no children; and those who do not marry,
like those who are widowed. 45 Because of this,
those who labor, labor in vain; 46 for strangers
shall gather their fruits, and plunder their goods,
overthrow their houses, and take their children captive;
for in captivity and famine they will produce their
children. 47 Those who conduct business, do so only
to have it plundered; the more they adorn their cities,
their houses and possessions, and their persons,
48 the more angry I will be with them for their
sins, says the Lord. (2 Esd 16:40–48;
NRSV).
Nine. We should note
that even though we tend to see 'apocalyptic' or
'eschatology' in Paul's phrases here, it is not completely
clear that the Eschaton is actually intended:
"The apostle
explains that the time
for doing the Lord’s work is short and is
coming to an end. This does not necessarily mean that he is
speaking of the second coming of Christ, for Paul may
have been anticipating severe persecutions and a
resulting curtailment of freedom to witness.
So for the time remaining Paul admonishes them not to be
overwhelmed by the social and material problems of the world
but to live as for the Lord. By “those who have wives should
live as if they had none” (v. 29) he means, “Live for the
Lord in marriage.” If life brings sadness, live beyond it,
do not be bound by it. If things are joyous, do not be
engrossed in them. Those who are blessed with material
possessions are not to cling to them, as though they were to
have them always. The reason for this challenge is that the
material things (this is the meaning of schema, v. 31, “the
present form”) of this world are changing and disappearing
(cf. Col 3:12–14)." [Mare, W. H. (1976). 1 Corinthians. In
F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary,
Volume 10: Romans Through Galatians (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.)
(235). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.]
Ten. Finally, we should note that whatever
this passage means, it cannot
be used to prove that Paul did
not think he/they would not die! The
whole of chapter 15 on the resurrection body
demonstrates that his thinking was
resurrection-centric (implying death for most) and
not rapture-centric (implying non-death for most).
Bodily resurrection shows up in ALL of his earliest
writings--right alongside the 'imminent hope'
terminology. In 1 Corinthians 15.32, he notes that
if 'the dead are not raised' then he personally
gained nothing from 'wrestling with beasts in
Ephesus'--he is expected HIS OWN resurrection as a
part of his reward. In 2 Corinthians 4.14, he
explicitly states that the "one who raised Jesus"
will also raise "us", and the whole "earthly tent"
discussion in 2 Cor 5 begins with a "if the earthly
tent we live in is destroyed" presumption. So,
this passage (and others like it in other
epistles) simply cannot be used to argue that he
was expecting himself and most of his
contemporaries to be alive at the Return of
Christ.
So, when you get into the details of the passage, you see that it
does not represent the type of urgency/interim-ethic
described by the blogger (and Schweitzer/Weiss), but
something much more in line with the teachings of Jesus in
the Synoptics (the management-type interim ethic).
What
about other Pauline passages?
We
have
already mentioned/discussed the 1
Thess passage, and saw that it was not a prediction
passage (even though it was in synch with Synoptic
teaching). But what about this interim-ethic idea? Does it
maybe contain such imperatives that only make sense under a
belief that the Eschaton would happen before the death of
the readers/Paul? Does Paul display an upheaval-type interim
ethic or a management-type interim ethic in I Thess?
Again,
the
wording is NOT what we would expect under a 'consistent
eschatology' framework, but rather is reflective of the
management-type of interim ethic:
"Christian hope
is quite concrete. The revelation of Jesus Christ shall
bring persecuted believers across the face of this earth
rest from their trials, even as it brings affliction to
their persecutors (2 Thess 1:5–7). And even more, God shall
then keep and preserve our whole being, including our body
(1 Thess 5:23). We therefore possess the great comfort that
those believers who have preceded us in death, who have
“fallen asleep through the Lord” shall suffer no
disadvantage at the last day (1 Thess 4:15). We shall be
taken up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air. In this way, i.e., in this bodily resurrection
and reunion, we shall always be with the Lord (1 Thess
4:16–17). As might be expected in a Hellenistic environment,
Paul
emphatically underscores the resurrection of the body.
Throughout the centuries Christians have rightly turned to
this promise for comfort in times of grief. Paul’s moral
injunctions therefore cannot be described as anything other
than an “interim
ethic,” in which all of life is measured by the hope of
Christ’s coming. From
this perspective, his exhortation to “lead a quiet
life and work with your own hands” is quite remarkable
(1 Thess 4:11–12; 2 Thess 3:12). One
might have expected something more dramatic, a call to
a separate and unusual way of life for believers.
Indeed, that is what some of the Thessalonian believers
themselves seem to have thought. This
was their temptation: to withdraw into a sort of
sectarian existence, supported by the goodwill and gifts
of the more affluent members of the believing community.
Clearly then, Paul’s instruction in this matter
is no capitulation to a bourgeois existence. It is rather
the commitment of Christian hope, which takes present
responsibility seriously even as it waits for the
transformation of the present order. The world and its
concerns necessarily assume a secondary significance, even
without losing their importance. The “first things” of the
public square remain penultimate matters for those awaiting
the coming of the Lord." ["Faith, Hope, and Love: Paul’s
Message to the Church at Thessalonica", Mark A. Seifrid,
Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Volume 3. 1999 (3)
(62–63). Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary. ]
But
it
could also be simply a reflection
of practical needs for self-support during
persecution. Even under this understanding, though, it is
still reflective of an awareness that the 'end is NOT
necessarily nigh' (at least not 'nigh enough' to quit
working!):
"Aspiring to
live a quiet life is defined as Christians minding their own
business and working with their own hands for their own
living. This exhortation was important for the community of
believers who needed to become
ever more self-sufficient within their own ranks,
especially in light of the persecution coming against
them, a persecution that could cut them off from
societal support. They needed to become sufficient
among themselves so as not to be dependent on
outsiders (non-Christians) for financial support." [Hoehner,
H. W., Comfort, P. W., & Davids, P. H. (2008).
Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol. 16: Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon.
(360). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]
So,
the
two (possibly) earliest of Paul's writings do NOT provide
evidence that he taught an 'upheaval interim ethic' at all.
His
ethic
was eschatological, of course, since the Eschaton had
'already begun' in the appearance of Jesus in the world, and
this meant that life MUST be lived in light that future judgment
was very real and would be 'very individualized' as well
(i.e. not just national or group judgments). His
eschatological ethic is based upon an 'inaugurated' version
of the Eschaton, in which our present lives are a 'mixture'
of the old kairos/age and the future kairos/age.
"An
eschatological ethic. Paul’s ethic can be described as eschatological
inasmuch as it calls upon believers to live with a
certain tension in their lives. Although they
have already been justified and reconciled in Christ, they
have not yet been saved. Consequently,
they must live between two ages with a certain
reservation about the present age. On the one
hand, they are already living in the new age of the Spirit.
On the other, they are still living in the old age, the
realm of the flesh, which has not yet passed away. They are
to be blameless before God at the coming of the Lord (1
Thess 3:13; 5:23 ), and they are to live with a profound
sense that the “present form of the world is passing away”
(1 Cor 7:31 ). The old age is passing away, and they are not
to be conformed to this world (Rom 12:2 ), for the day of
the Parousia is near (Rom 13:11-12 ). Paul’s ethical
teaching, then, is marked by a keen awareness that the end
of the age has already made its appearance and that the
final consummation of all things is at hand. Those who live
according to this ethic must walk between the old age, which
is passing away, and the new age, which has already
appeared. ETHICS
IN THE NT. FRANK
J. MATERA, NIB/NIDB
"It is
sometimes suggested that an overemphasis on eschatological
matters undermines the need for a strong ethical code for
living in the present. Contrary
to many popular assumptions about the detachment alleged
to be inherent within eschatological teaching, Paul’s
letters demonstrate a close connection between
eschatology and ethical exhortation. This is
evident within the earliest of his letters, those written to
the church at Thessalonica where Paul confronts
a misguided understanding about work which is based upon
an erroneous view of the imminent return of Christ
. Similarly, the ethical exhortations contained in Romans
12–13 are wholly conditioned by an eschatological
perspective; the passage begins with an appeal that the
believer not be “conformed to this world but be transformed
by the renewal of your mind” (Rom 12:2), and concludes with
an extended paragraph warning of the approaching day of
Christ (Rom 13:11–14). The same observation can be made
about 2
Corinthians 5:1–10 where the eschatological
teaching about the
implications of a Christian’s death are interwoven with
the exhortation to gain Christ’s approval (1
Cor 5:9). ... Indeed, it is possible to see the whole
of Paul’s ethical teaching as providing instruction
about how the Christian is to live in the interval
between the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and
his future parousia. In the evocative phrase
of Sampey, Paul’s moral teaching involves teaching the
Christian about walking
“between
the times.”" [Hawthorne, G. F.,
Martin, R. P., & Reid, D. G. (1993). Dictionary of Paul
and his letters (266). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press.]
"Paul’s ethics
are strongly influenced by the tension implicit in the
belief that the coming new
age is present already (Rom 13:11–12), yet only
partially. The expectation creates moral
seriousness (Rom 13:13–14). The eschatological teaching of 1
Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 is placed in the middle of the
ethical sections of the letter so that 1 Thessalonians 5:12
smoothly resumes the thought of 1 Thessalonians 4:12. The
eschatological reserve means that while voicing a powerful
expression of Christian freedom (1 Cor 3:21–22), Paul
also warns that the eschatological time is not yet:
Judge not before the final judgment (1 Cor
4:5)." [Hawthorne, G. F., Martin, R. P., & Reid, D. G.
(1993). Dictionary of Paul and his letters (272). Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]
We
will
look specifically at Paul's eschatology proper (along with
the other NT writers) in a later section of this series, so
we are trying to confine our investigation here to ethical
passages in the Pauline (and other NT writers') literature.
We are seeking to assess to what extent the ethical passages
in the non-Synoptic writings are samples of 'upheaval
interim ethics'.
So,
to
continue with Pauline
literature (in the wider sense), we should note that Paul
has too many ethical passages for us to examine here! We
will have to be selective in what passages we survey,
choosing most from eschatological or apocalyptic-sounding
passages, with others from perhaps more mundane contexts.
The
more
apocalyptic-oriented
passages (with exhortations embedded) fall in line with the
Synoptics, and can almost be classified by the main
imperative in the words of Jesus.
So,
the
passages which call for 'staying
awake' and 'being
faithful to our responsibilities' find their
expressions in Paul in such passages as these:
"Owe
nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who
loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this,
"YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER,
YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there
is any other commandment, it is summed up in this
saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 10
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the
fulfillment of the law. 11 Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to
awaken from sleep; for now salvation is
nearer to us than when we believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is
near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of
darkness and put on the armor of light.
13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in
carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and
sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the
flesh in regard to its lusts." (Romans
13.8-14)
"For
you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the
Lord; walk
as children of Light. . . . Do
not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness,
but instead even expose them; ... "For this reason it
says, "Awake,
sleeper, And arise from the dead, And
Christ will shine on you." .. . 18 And do not get drunk
with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with
the Spirit." (Eph 5.8ff)
"But
you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would
overtake you like a thief; 5 for you are all sons of
light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of
darkness; 6 so then let us not
sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober.
7 For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and
those who get drunk get drunk at night. 8 But since we
are of the day, let us be sober,
having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as
a helmet, the hope of salvation. (1 Thess
5.4-8)
And
the
'endurance'
passages of the Synoptics find their expressions in Paul
also:
"Finally,
be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.
11 Put
on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to
stand against the schemes of the devil.
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers, against the authorities, against the
cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the
spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you
may be able
to withstand in the evil day, and having
done all, to
stand firm. 14 Stand therefore,
having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on
the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes
for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the
gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the
shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the
flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet
of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the
word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit,
with all prayer and supplication. To
that end keep alert with all perseverance,
making supplication for all the saints
(Eph 6.10-18)
Be
watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be
strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Cor 16.13f)
As
does
the 'do
not worry' theme:
"The
Lord is at hand; 6 do not be anxious
about anything, but in everything by
prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your
requests be made known to God." (Philp 4.5-6)
"Paul’s appeal
to the Philippians is do not be anxious about anything. But
this was not a call to a carefree life. To care and be
genuinely concerned is one thing. To worry is another. Paul
and Timothy cared for the people they ministered to (2 Cor.
11:28; Phil. 2:20), yet they retained trust in God.
Jesus warned against worry which obviously eliminates
trust in God (Matt. 6:25-33)." [BKC]
"This teaching
is also plainly announced in the Sermon on the Mount in
Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 6:33). It is worth noting that the
apostle Paul
taught the same thing about living without worry:
“Don’t worry about anything; instead, pray about everything.
Tell God what you need, and thank him for all he has done”
(Phil 4:6). It
appears that the early church took the instructions
Jesus had given them about worry-free living with great
seriousness." [Trites, A. A., & William
J. Larkin. (2006). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 12:
The Gospel of Luke and Acts (193). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale
House Publishers.]
And
the
'treasures
in heaven' theme:
If
then you have been raised with Christ, seek
the things that are above, where Christ is,
seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set
your minds on things that are above, not on
things that are on earth. (Col 3:1–2).
"set your sights on.
Traditionally the underlying Greek (zēteite) is translated
as “seek,” a term that can mean “try to obtain,” not in the
sense of getting into heaven, but in the sense of trying to
obtain the heavenly in this world, i.e., “keep looking for”
(Dunn 1996:205). See
Matt 6:33: “Seek the Kingdom of God above all else,
and live righteously, and he will give you everything you
need,” or more traditionally put, “Strive first for the
Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things
will be given to you as well” (NRSV). 3:2
Think
about. This phrase can mean “hold an
opinion,” but also “set one’s mind on, be intent on” or
“have thoughts or an attitude, be minded” (BDAG 1065–1066).
The point Paul was making is that one’s attitudes are to be
determined by the realities above rather than the realities
on this earth because one’s thoughts are focused on those
realities. Jesus had previously
pointed out that it was difficult to do this if one’s
treasure was on earth rather than in heaven (Matt
6:19–21). Mark 8:33b indicates that Peter’s failure
was a failure to take on this heavenly point of view."
[Hoehner, H. W., Comfort, P. W., &
Davids, P. H. (2008). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol.
16: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2
Thessalonians, Philemon. (283). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale
House Publishers.]
What is entirely missing from
any of the Pauline material are any 'sell all/give all'
passages or 'leave all/follow' passages.
These images are connected with upheaval-type interim ethics
(in the opinions of some), but they do not show up in Paul
at all. These would be key markers of such ethic, if the
blogger's hypothesis were correct. If this type of interim
ethic were "all
the way through the NT corpus", we should at
least expect SOME version of this in the Pauline
literature--but there is NONE.
We
find
instead indications of the opposite: private property is
owned by disciples, but is subjected to a management-type
interim ethic. It is not to become an 'idol', but rather a
tool for serving the Lord and serving others. It is in basic
continuity with "Jewish piety" and therefore also
"pre-Jesus".
There
are
many passages which show this perspective in Paul (similar
to that evidenced by Jesus). Here are a couple of summaries
or observations on Paul's view of property/wealth:
"The final two
items need comment since they set up the concluding causal
clause.
Paul does not discourage buying and selling. As with the
other items, the Corinthians are expected to continue
doing such things. But Christians do not buy
to possess; that is to let the world govern the reason for
buying. Those who buy are to do so “as if not” in terms of
possessing anything. The eschatological
person “has nothing, yet possesses all things”
(2 Cor. 6:10; cf. 1 Cor 3:22). Thus the Christian can at the
same time “use the present world.” This
is the clearest indication that Paul does not have a
separatist’s bent. The world as such is
neither good nor evil; it simply is. But in its present form
it is passing away. Thus while one uses the world, one must
be “as if not,” which in this case does not mean “not abuse”
(KJV), but not to make full use of it, that is, be “not
engrossed” or “absorbed” in it. [Fee, G. D. (1987). The
First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International
Commentary on the New Testament (341). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.]
"In the Pauline
church mutual love in labor is to be expressed not only in
providing for one’s own needs, but also in working in order
to share with those with basic needs (Eph 4:28). Acts
20:34–35 ties these elements together. The standard for possessions is to be
sufficiency (1 Tim 6:8).
Riches are not owed to the rich and are futile
(1 Tim 6:7). They also are a danger to faith itself (1 Tim
6:9–10). Paul desired that his followers have a devotion to
Christ freed from anxiety, which came from being tied more
than necessary to the fallen social order, which is passing
away (1 Cor 7:32–35). Economic
relationships with the social order cannot be avoided,
but they should not be overused. Purchases
will
have to be made but without retaining more than is
needed (1 Cor 7:30–31)." [Hawthorne,
G. F., Martin, R. P., & Reid, D. G. (1993). Dictionary
of Paul and his letters (274). Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.]
"The lack of
attention in the Pauline letters to the rich and to the
appropriate use of riches is remarkable. The subject is
common in intertestamental Jewish wisdom literature and
among contemporary Greco-Roman moralists, and of course the
Synoptic Gospels and James evince considerable concern about
the dangers of wealth. The evidence of Acts (e.g., Acts
16:14; 17:12; 18:7–8) and analysis of names mentioned in
Paul’s correspondence (e.g., Rom 16:1–23) suggest that
there were many early converts who were well-to-do.
Yet Paul scarcely touches on the subject of riches, and the
only extended treatment is 1 Timothy 6:6–10, 17–19. ... 1
Corinthians 1:26 indicates that “not many”
Corinthians were in positions of power or nobility, but
recent studies have shown that it is a mistake to take this
as an indicator of a low economic level in the Pauline
churches. “Not many” allows for significant exceptions (cf.
Acts 18:7–8; Rom 16:23), and people could possess riches
without prestige or rank. Indeed, Paul criticizes members of
the church for social pretensions (1 Cor 11:19) and social
prejudice (1 Cor 11:17–22), and his
extended appeal for financial aid assumes their ability
to support the cause of helping the Jerusalem
poor (2 Cor 8–9; esp. 2 Cor 8:13–15). The emerging consensus
is that Pauline churches represented a fair cross-section of
urban society: few extremes on either end of the
socioeconomic scale, and a preponderance of artisans and
traders at various levels of income. ... The
personal economic ethic of the Pauline corpus reflects
standard Jewish piety of the period. This
includes warnings
against
greed (1 Cor 5:11; 1 Tim 3:8; Tit
1:7), avoidance of poverty by industry (Rom 13:8; 1 Thess
4:11–12; cf. 2 Thess 3:6–12), priority
in giving to one’s own household
(Gal 6:10; 1 Tim 5:8; cf. Acts 11:27–30) and
liberality toward others (Rom 12:8,
13; 1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 8:2; Eph 4:28). The focus of
liberality for Paul is the collection for the saints, which
appears to have taken the place of the Jewish Temple tax as
a Pauline expression of solidarity with the Jerusalem church
(Rom 15:25–29; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9; perhaps Gal 2:10). More specifically, the rich themselves are
enjoined to generosity, which will result in spiritual
blessings in this life (2 Cor
9:10–15; Phil 4:14–20) and the next (1 Tim 6:19). ...
Along with these Jewish features, there are also some Greek
elements in Paul’s teaching (especially in 2 Cor 8–9). The
warning against “love of money” (1 Tim 3:3; 6:6–10; 2 Tim
3:2) is common in contemporary Greek literature. In
Philippians 4:11–13 Paul argues for “self-sufficiency” in
all circumstances (autarkēs, Phil 4:11; cf. 1 Tim 6:7–8), a
term common among Stoics and Cynics. In Cynic practice and
in later Christian monasticism, autarkeia
implied not only spiritual freedom or detachment but also
voluntary reduction to a minimal economic level. Paul’s
teaching—and certainly his example—allow for such a radical
degree of liberality on the part of the rich. Indeed, 1
Corinthians 13:3 alludes to those who “give away all”
(provided they have love). But the fact that Paul does not make
explicit such a demand suggests that his expectations
for liberality are limited to such expressions of
solidarity as the collection and provision for the
subsistence of needy believers (Eph
4:28)." [Hawthorne, G. F., Martin, R. P., & Reid, D. G.
(1993). Dictionary of Paul and his letters (826–827).
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.; s.v. "Riches and
Poverty", T.E. Schmidt]
So,
the
blogger's phrase "and
on and on, all the way through the NT corpus"
at least fails in the case of the Pauline literature (the
bulk of the NT corpus, after the Synoptics).
Now,
let's
look for 'upheaval interim ethics' in the books by other
authors/writers of the NT: Acts,
James,
1 and 2 Peter/Jude,
Book of
Hebrews, and John.
Acts.
As
far
as I can tell, the Book of Acts has the passages closest to
something resembling the blogger's 'upheaval interim
ethics'. There are a couple of passages that come
immediately to mind (2.44ff and 4.32ff).
"And
all who believed were together and had all
things in common. 45 And they were selling
their possessions and belongings and distributing
the proceeds to all, as any had need."
(Ac 2:44–45).
"Now
the full number of those who believed were of one heart
and soul, and no one said that any of the things that
belonged to him was his own, but they had
everything in common.
33 And with great power the apostles were giving
their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not
a needy person among them,
for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold
them and brought the proceeds of what was sold
35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it
was distributed to each as any had need.
36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles
Barnabas
(which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native
of Cyprus, 37 sold
a field that belonged to him and brought
the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet."
(Ac 4:32–37).
This
certainly
looks close to the two 'sell/give/follow' passages (i.e. the
Rich Young Man, and the Lucan version of 'treasures in
heaven').
Let's
make
some observations:
One. Logistically, this cannot be at the same
level as the words of Jesus--the
numbers are too big. In Jesus' case the
explicit (sell-all/give-all/follow-me) was only given to one
individual (i.e. the Rich Young Man/Ruler). The new converts
in Acts 2.44 number about 3000 people, and this large of a
group cannot 'follow' the apostles (even assuming that the
Roman government would not instantly see this as a threat
and squash it!). And the 'treasures in heaven' passage in
Luke does not specify ALL possessions, and it is therefore
in full continuity with this passage. But we saw that the
'treasures' passages (in all of the Synoptics) were not
interim-ethics passages (in the 'upheaval' sense) at all.
Two. This sharing was not
a once-for-all, initiatory rite to enter the
ranks of discipleship, but was an
'as often as needed' pattern. Believers
still had property (e.g. they had houses to 'break bread in'
and be taught in--v46), but they sold it for helping others
'as they had need' (2.45, 4.32ff). The apostles did not
mandate this--which they SHOULD have done if Jesus had
actually TAUGHT this.
"This sharing
of material things in common is not a required communalism
but a voluntary, caring response to need, as the end of
verse 45 shows. The verbs for “sell” (ἐπίπρασκον,
epipraskon) and “distribute” (διεμέριζον, diemerizon) are
iterative imperfects (Moulton and Turner 1963: 67): this
sharing was done again and again. Everything Luke says about
this indicates that he sees such provision as a very
positive act, an act of genuine care. The size of the group
may well have made this possible, but the later effort by
Paul to raise money from Gentiles for this community shows
that it functioned across communities as well (2 Cor. 8–9).
Acts 5:4 makes clear that such a donation was not required,
in contrast to the requirement at Qumran among the Essenes
(1QS 1.11–12; 5.1–3; 6.2–3; CD 9.1–15; 1QS 9.3–11, but there
the motivation was to ensure purity). That the later church
did not keep the practice speaks to the authenticity of this
scene... The
verb in the imperfect shows that this is an ongoing
distribution. As people are having (εἶχεν,
eichen) need, they receive help (Witherington 1998: 162;
Haenchen 1987: 192; BDF §325, §367; the verb is used with
iterative ἄν, an). This
means that people did not sell everything all at once.
The picture is of a community that cares for all of its
members, even those in material need." [Bock, D. L. (2007).
Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
(152). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
"Sometimes
a false impression is gained that these early Christians
sold everything they owned when they joined the church.
This was, in fact, the practice of the Qumran community on
the Dead Sea. When someone joined that group, his property
and earnings were all handed over to a trustee in the
community and it became part of a common fund. This is not
the case, however, for these first believers. Their
commitment to Jesus and the work of the Spirit in their
lives produce in them a
completely new attitude to their property. No
longer are they motivated to amass wealth for themselves,
but they now view what they have as resources for the cause
of Christ and for the care of his people. The verb tense for
“selling” (the imperfect) implies that there was not
one big sale of goods upon a person’s conversion, but
that individuals sold portions of their personal and
real property as needs in the community
surfaced. This was entirely voluntary and not
mandated by the apostles." [Arnold, C. E.
(2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary
Volume 2: John, Acts. (238). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.]
Three. This ethic is
pre-Jesus
and grounded
in relationships (especially friendship and family), not
eschatology:
"Notes about possessing
all things in common are not unusual as a sign of
ethical virtue in the culture (Philo, Good
Person 12 §86; Hypothetica 11.10–13; Abraham 40 §235;
Josephus, Ant. 18.1.5 §20 [of the Essenes]). The Greek
view was that friends share things in common (Plato,
Republic 4.424A; 5.449C; Critias 110C–D; Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics 1168B.31; Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras
30.168). Later
rabbinic Judaism argued against it (m.
ʾAbot 5.10; Johnson 1992: 9). ... Community
members are moved to sell what they own, both possessions
and goods, and give the proceeds to those in need (...). Some
scholars suggest that this reflects their expectation
that Christ would return soon
(Barrett 1994: 168), yet the reason given is not eschatological
but social. They are motivated by
concern for the needs of the community (χρείαν, chreian,
need; perhaps
as Jesus taught in Luke 6:30–36 or from the OT and Deut.
15:4–5; Polhill 1992: 121). Jesus’s teaching
about not hoarding material provisions from God also may
well provide background (Luke 12:13–21). The same motivation
appears in Acts 4:35, and failure to meet such needs in 6:3
among Hellenist widows leads to a complaint and resolution
in the church (20:34 and 28:10 complete the uses of the term
“need” in Acts)." [Bock, D. L. (2007). Acts. Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (152–153). Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
Four. The behavior described here differs from
other known 'withdrawal' groups. The economic model is
different from 'true' community ownership and closer
to models in the Hebrew Bible.
"Some Jewish
groups, like the group that lived at Qumran, followed the
Pythagorean model and turned all their possessions over to
the leaders of the community so they could all withdraw from
society. That is hardly the case here, although the economic
sharing is no less radical. The
early Christians acknowledge that Jesus owns both them
and their property (cf. 4:32); they sell off
property to meet needs as they arise (4:34–35) and open
their homes as meeting places for fellow Christians (2:46).
These
actions do not reflect an ascetic ideal, as in some
Greek and Jewish sects, but instead the practice of
radically valuing people over possessions. Such
behavior reportedly continued among Christians well into the second century,
and it
was long ridiculed by pagans until
pagan values finally overwhelmed the church." [Keener, C. S.
(1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament
(Ac 2:43–45). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]
"Here two
ideals for a community of goods seem to be combined. First
is the Greek ideal of a community in which everything is
held in common and shared equally. It is a basically utopian
concept, which can be traced as far back as the Pythagorean
communities and is often expressed by the same phrase Luke
employed in v. 44, “holding all in common” (echein hapanta
koina). Verse
45, however, speaks against the early Christian
community adopting a practice of community ownership.
The imperfect tense is used, indicating that this was a
recurrent, continuing practice: their practice was to sell their property and
goods and apportion the proceeds whenever a need arose.
This is much more in keeping with the Old
Testament ideal of community equality, of
sharing with the needy so that “there will be no poor among
you” (Deut 15:4f.)." [Polhill, J. B. (1995). Vol. 26: Acts.
The New American Commentary (120–121). Nashville: Broadman
& Holman Publishers.]
Fifth. This giving
would be done by only
a very small portion of these disciples,
since most of them would be 'the poor'. The givers are being
'rich toward God', and are motivated by love, not by an
'imminent eschaton'.
"No
needy
people (οὐδὲ … ἐνδεής, oude … endeēs)
are a part of the group, as this pooling of resources meets
all needs. Literally, there is no one who “lacked” in the
community. This meets a
standard God called for in Deut. 15:4, where
there are to be no poor because of God’s provision in the
land for his people (Le Cornu and Shulam 2003: 253; see also
Matt. 25:35–40). This
OT passage is part of a larger discussion on possessions
(Deut. 15:1–18). All of these descriptions of
the mutual care within the community are presented
positively by Luke. These acts evidence the community’s piety
and mutual commitment to God and one another.
It is a sign that they see each other as family or friends,
worthy of compassionate care. Witherington (1998: 162–63)
notes that the Qumran Essenes had such a standard—not to
show friendship or kinship, however, but for reasons of
ritual purity (1QS 5.1–3; 9.3–11; CD 9.1–15). Greek culture
also sensed the appeal of such community (Plato, Republic
5.449C; Critias 110C–D; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1168B:
“Friends have one soul between them”). Philo shows that this
was evident in Judaism (Abraham 40 §235; a major Greek
theme, Johnson 1992: 86; Conzelmann 1987: 36; Eckey 2000:
126–27). ... The explanation (γάρ, gar) for the mechanism of
achieving this concrete expression of community follows. Some members own houses
and land, part of a very small middle class in this
first-century culture, about 10 percent of the
population. The upper class was even smaller,
constituting 4 to 7 percent. These
members of the new movement are selling what they have and
bringing the proceeds to the community as represented by the
apostles, who oversee the distribution of resources. The
imperfect verb ἔφερον (epheron, were bringing) and present
participle (πωλοῦντες, pōlountes, selling) in combination
suggest a
gradual liquidation of assets, not selling everything
all at once (Williams 1990: 93). The Greek
verbs for “set” and “distribute” in verse 35 are also
imperfect . ... That Ananias and Sapphira could have kept
some of their proceeds (Acts 5:3–4) supports the idea that
such liquidation took place over time, not all at once, as
does Mary’s owning a home in the city (12:12–13).
Such a need to pool resources may well have arisen because
many in the new community were poor and, in addition,
persecution may well have left others in the community
isolated socially. So
the response is one that emerges out of concern for
fellow members. They are giving without expecting
anything back in return, an ethic like that noted in
Luke 6:34. " [Bock, D. L.
(2007). Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament (214–215). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
Sixth. There is a
sense in which this practice is
eschatological, in that it pre-figures what the
eventual/full kingdom will be like. Just like the judgment
of the world was 'inaugurated' at the Cross, the
miracles of Jesus were due to the in-breaking of the
Eschatological Jubilee, the resurrection of Jesus was the
first-yet-decisive victory over cosmic forces, the
outpouring of the Spirit was the 'down payment' of the
promise of universal intimacy with God (a
la Joel, in Peter's sermon), the gift of
tongues was the reversal of the Tower of Babel, so too was
this mutuality-loving-sharing-unity a foretaste of the
Ultimate Community:
"The
Christians’ unity, grounded in their reception of the
apostles’ teaching, is a mark
of the restored community of the last days
(Mic 2:12; cf. Isa 11:6–7; 1QS 5:1–3)." [Trites, A. A.,
& William J. Larkin. (2006). Cornerstone biblical
commentary, Vol 12: The Gospel of Luke and Acts (398). Carol
Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]
"If v. 32
depicted the Christian sharing in terms of Greek ideals,
verse 34a sets forth the Old Testament ideal: “There
were no needy persons among them.” This is
the ideal God established for Israel. According to Deut
15:4f., Israel was to keep God’s commands; and God would
bless them; there would be no poor among them. There
is evidence that in New Testament times the text of Deut
15:4 was seen as a reference to the ideal
final times when Israel would be
fully faithful to the law and there would be no poverty
in the land." [Polhill, J. B. (1995). Vol.
26: Acts. The New American Commentary (152). Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers.
So,
these
first-- and most promising-- passages in Acts end up not
supporting the hypothesis at all. They don't
manifest any 'eschatological motivation'--but they might
result from the 'inaugurated' eschatological forces
unleashed by the Lord. They
don't support 'upheaval' but rather 'management' type
'interim ethics'. And--if you buy the later
dating of Luke-Acts, they are in the reverse timing sequence
needed to support the hypothesis (and therefore count against
the hypothesis).
For
a
NT book that both
starts with (Acts 1.3: He presented
himself alive to them after his suffering by many
proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking
about the kingdom of God.) and
ends on (Acts 28, 31: He
lived there two whole years at his own expense, and
welcomed all who came to him, 31 proclaiming the
kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ
with all boldness and without hindrance.) the
theme of 'the kingdom of God', the
accounts of disciples and/or converts are quite free of
calls to 'sell/give/follow' or even 'leave and follow'
instructions and they show that believers
continued to own property (and use it for the kingdom). For examples, we
could note the Ethiopian treasurer (who was not ordered to
quit his job and sell all his possessions) in Acts 8 , the
soldier Cornelius (who was not ordered to quit his job and
sell his possessions) in Acts 10, the proconsul of Cyprus
(who was not ordered to quit his job and sell his many
possessions ) in Acts 13, the merchant Lydia (who was not
ordered to quit her job and sell her house) in Acts 16, the
Philippian jailer (who was not ordered to quit his job and
sell his possessions) in Acts 16, or even Philip the
'traveling evangelist' who (in Acts 21) owns a house and has
4 daughters in the ministry.
There
are
other passages in Acts which have eschatological-connected
ethical imperatives, but they are of the 'judgment is coming
surely and unexpectedly' type--and not keyed to timing
issues and not demanding 'upheaval' at all. They look more
like the eschatological demands of John the Baptist--he did
not demand that tax-collectors quit their job, or that
soldiers resign from the military. He just told them to
clean up their act, in light of the reality of coming
judgment. In Pauline terms, he spoke of the day of judgment
when the 'secrets of men will be judged' by Christ...
James (ethics).
James--like
all
NT authors--looks forward to the Eschaton, when all things
are restored and/or renewed. For James, whose concern was
largely about injustice and problems within the faithful,
the 'reversal' aspect of the Eschaton (the last shall be
first, the poor will inherit, etc) is prominent. But this
leads to an 'interim ethic' of patience and quiet
waiting--more like the management ethic evidenced elsewhere.
"Eschatological
motifs. The nexus between a pragmatic and this-worldly
religion and the yearning for divine intervention into
cosmic history is one that at first glance is hard to
justify. Yet in the later wisdom books (e.g., Wisd Sol) the
link is there, probably because of a common concern to trace
all activity, divine and human alike, to the creator. At the
center of the Hebrew faith is the belief in a creator-God
who places all things “in order” (...). Evil, which connotes
disorder and disharmony with the will of the creator, is a
challenge to that divine purpose. But in the end order—on a
cosmic scale as well as in human society and individual
lives—will be restored. ...
James carries forward this teaching with his stress
on the divine creation (1:18) and the
call for order to reverse the destructive and
disintegrating effects of evil (3:6). His
main interest, however, lies elsewhere, namely, in the social
inequalities
and injustices that cry out for divine visitation and
rectification (2:5–7; 4:11–12;
5:1–9). In the meantime, as
an “interim ethic,” the readers are counseled to
patience and quiet waiting for God to act
(5:10, 16), in the spirit of the wisdom teachers who took
Job as their model." [Martin, R. P. (1998). Vol. 48: James.
Word Biblical Commentary (xcii). Dallas: Word,
Incorporated.]
He
displays
the 'already/not-yet' tensions in the present era in the
images of 'firstfruits'
(as the resurrected Christ is the 'firstfruits from among
the dead', in Pauline terms, cf. I Cor 15.20).
"The letter of
James is really a paraenesis, a didactic text that gathers
moral instruction from a variety of sources, including
Jewish and Greek, as well as Christian, traditions. As such
it surely represents the moral life as living in accord with
tradition, but it tests tradition and behavior by “the
wisdom from above” (Jas 3:17). This wisdom is not simply
based on experience; it
is wisdom in light of the end. In
the light of “the coming of the Lord” readers
are advised to “be patient”
(Jas 5:7–8). Such patience entails both the endurance of hardship (Jas
1:2–4; utilizing the tradition of joy in suffering [cf. 1
Pet 1:6–7; Rom 5:3–5]) and withstanding
temptation (Jas 1:12–16, in the form of a
beatitude, a wisdom form). Moreover, in the light of the coming great reversal
(Jas 2:5; 4:6–10; 5:1), the rich are urged to repent.
Such repentance entails rejecting the conventional reliance
on wealth that passes for wisdom (Jas 1:9–11; 4:13–5:3), and
it requires hospitality to the poor (Jas 2:2–6), justice
(Jas 5:4) and tangible charity (Jas 1:27; 2:15–17). ... The
“wisdom
from above” is not a human achievement but a
gift
“from above” (cf. Jas 1:5, 17–18). It is not an esoteric
knowledge or gnostic enlightenment; it results in virtue, in
community-forming and community-preserving traits of
character (Jas 3:17), so that Christians become
“firstfruits of his creatures” (Jas 1:18), firstfruits
of “a harvest of righteousness” (Jas
3:18; see Righteousness)." [Martin, R. P., & Davids, P.
H. (2000). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its
developments (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.]
BTW,
the
image of 'firstfruits' is a pretty good one for 'inaugurated
eschatology', in that there is continuity-yet-escalation
notion built in:
"In the OT, the
firstfruits of the field, all produce (both raw and
processed) and flocks are to be consecrated and offered to
God according to sacerdotal prescriptions (Exod. 22:28;
23:19; Deut. 18:4; 26:2, 10; Num. 18:8–12; Neh. 10:37; cf.
Jdt. 11:13). The offerings of firstfruits provides the
redemption of the harvest, as the firstborn of people and
animals also need (Exod. 13:2–16; Num. 3:12–16). In Neh.
10:36–37, the firstfruits of all the harvest is put side by
side with the firstborn of the people and livestock that
have to be offered to God as a thanksgiving offering and for
the support of the priesthood. In a special sense, the
‘first’ is also supposed to be the best, the ‘choicest’
(Rigsby, ABD: 2.796). It is the harbinger and sample of the
full harvest. Then
it is used figuratively with Israel (Jer. 2:3; ראשׁית). Philo speaks of Israel as ‘a kind of
firstfruits to the Maker and Father’ (Spec. Leg. 4.180). The idea, however, is not
very common in Jewish tradition. ... The figure is used
exclusively in a metaphorical sense in the New Testament.
The presence of the Holy Spirit with believers are
the firstfruits, an indication of that which is to
come (Rom. 8:23). In this sense
‘first in a sequence’ is Christ’s resurrection as the
‘firstfruits of those who have died’ (1 Cor. 15:20; 1 Clem.
24:1). In the same way,
Israel, in the image of the dough in Rom. 11:16, is also
like the first piece whose holiness assures the holiness
of the entire lump, a sample pointing to the
greater yield. Epaenetus is the firstfruits of the
Christians in Asia (Rom. 16:5), and the household of
Stephanus is also the firstfruits of the Christians in
Achaia (1 Cor. 16:15) in the sense that they are the first
converts in a sequence (cf. 1 Clem. 42:4; also 2 Thess.
2:13). In Rev. 14:4, the ‘followers of the Lamb’ are
redeemed from humankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb.
... In the same manner, in Jas 1:18, those reborn
are ‘a kind of firstfruits,’ the first in a sequence,
in which other ‘creatures’ (κτίσματα) will come to
follow. Our author conceives of the renewed messianic
people of God as the prelude to the new creation of
the whole world, the representative
beginning of the redemption of the world (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17;
Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:10; 4:24). Such description also points
forward to the time when God’s intention (cf. 1:18:
βουληθείς) to redeem his whole creation will be completed.
Meanwhile, the eschatological community of God’s people as
recipient of the word of truth has entered the new order
where the powers of evil (or evil inclination) have been
broken." [Cheung, L. L. (2003). The Genre, Composition and
Hermeneutics of the Epistle of James (245–246). Milton
Keynes: Paternoster Press.]
"The first of
the seasonal produce from the soil (Heb. bikkûrɩ̂m, “first
ripe”; rēʾšɩ̂ṯ, “first processed”).
It was considered to be intrinsically holy, the
possession of God. In acknowledgement that
Yahweh owns the land as well as the crops produced on it,
and also that he brought Israel into the land, the first
part of the crop was to be transferred to God before the
rest could be consumed. Without
that transfer, there could be no blessing on the rest of
the crop (Lev. 19:23–25; 23:14; Deut.
26:1–15; Prov. 3:9–10). This transfer of the firstfruits to
God was required not only from the first ripe of the crop,
but also from the first processed of some products: grain,
new wine, new olive oil, first syrup, leavened food, bread
dough, and even wool (Lev. 2:12; Num. 15:20–21; 18:12; Deut.
18:4). ... The very first sheaf of grain harvested (probably
barley, since it ripened first) was to be transferred to God
by the elevation
ceremony (“wave” in many translations; NRSV
“raise”) before the Lord (Lev. 23:10ff.) preceding the
consumption of any of the new harvest, along with other
sacrifices. This
public act proclaimed that the harvest belonged to the
Lord. Seven weeks later a sacred occasion was
to be proclaimed during which no laborious work could be
performed. ... In Greek literature up to the 1st century,
Gk. aparchḗ is used as a term for “firstfruits” sacrificed
to the gods in nonbiblical literature and to
the Lord in the LXX. In the NT Paul uses this
concept of firstfruits, especially relating to the OT, as a
metaphor
for
Jesus as the first one to rise from the dead, the first
in a series of those who will rise from the dead in
the future (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). He also uses it to describe
the first converts to Christianity in certain geographical
areas (1 Cor. 16:15; Rom. 16:5). In Rom. 8:23 Paul names the
gift of the Spirit as firstfruits. In Rom. 11:16 he uses a
double metaphor of the dough as firstfruits to the whole
lump, and secondly a tree, naming roots and branches. Both
stress that Israel is holy because of her holy origin,
despite unholy appearances at this time. Similarly,
James (Jas. 1:18) uses the term to address Christians as
the “firstfruits of (God’s) creatures.” In
Rev. 14:4 the 144 thousand are a “firstfruit” for
Christians; they are undefiled, without deceit, and
spotless." [Hildenbrand, M. D. (2000). Firstfruits. In D. N.
Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck (Eds.), Eerdmans
dictionary of the Bible (D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers &
A. B. Beck, Ed.) (462). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.]
"Whereas OT
occurrences of “first fruits” all refer to a literal
offering or a portion of the harvest (except for the
metaphorical usage in Jer 2:3), the NT usage of aparche
(“beginning”) is exclusively figurative. The figure is based
on the agricultural or ritual fact. Just as literal first fruits are a harbinger
and sample of the full harvest, the
presence of the Holy Spirit with the believer is an
indication of that which is to come (Rom 8:23), Christians
are the first fruits of God’s people (Jas 1:18 and probably
2 Thess 2:13), and those who follow the Lamb are the first
fruits to God (Rev 14:4). Just as literal first fruits are
first in sequence, Epaenetus is the first fruits of the
Christians in Asia, and the household of Stephanus is the
first fruits of the Christians in Achaia. Combining the
ideas of the harbinger and first in sequence, Christ, in his
resurrection, is the “first fruits of those that slept.”
Just as the ritual called for a heave offering of the “first
fruits” of a batch of dough (Num 15:20) and the holiness of
the first piece of dough assures the holiness of the entire
lump, believing
Jews are a sample pointing to a much greater yield (Rom
11:16)." [Rigsby, R. O. (1992). First Fruits.
In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), . Vol. 2: The Anchor Yale Bible
Dictionary (D. N. Freedman, Ed.) (797). New York:
Doubleday.]
So,
the
ethics in James do not seem to support the hypothesis of a
'consistent eschatology' at all.
And--without
getting
too far ahead--I should point out that there
may be a timing problem here for the
blogger's hypothesis.
Many
consider
the book of James to be one of the earliest (if not the
earliest) of the NT writings, being written in the early
40's. If ever there was a
pre-70 writing that SHOULD manifest some kind of
upheaval-now ethic or separatist ethic or urgency of
mission, it would be HERE. But the
teaching is simply not
to be found in James--even though there are
apocalyptic-sounding elements. The ethic anticipates an
upheaval later (with the Great Reversal), but believers are
called to endurance, faithfulness, peace, wisdom, and
community love.
Additionally,
it
is interesting to note that
James' use of the New Birth motif in 1.18 ("He
chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that
we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created")
is very close to the images of the New
Birth in John's writings and to the New
Creation images in Paul. James refers to the kingdom in one
place (as yet future), but there is nothing AT ALL about
imminence or short-term thinking. [This assumes that the
reference to 'birth here' is the new birth and not the
original creation--see comments below.]
This
suggests
that the images of the New
Birth (in John and in 1 Peter) are as old as 'kingdom
talk', and that there is no 'linear watering
down' evident. The New Birth / Birth from above images are not
present in the Synoptics (with the possible exception of the
seed in the Parable of the Sower?) and their presence in
James (and 1 Peter) show that they were not
later add-ons, foisted upon the gospel Jesus
by an embarrassed church.
"The
translation “word of truth” = “word about truth” could be
taken the same way but also suggests being understood as a
particular expression of God’s “Word.” Three obvious options
suggest themselves. First, the word by which God created
humans (Gen 1:26–30; see also James 3:9 and Rom 1:25; see
Edsman, “Schöpferwille,” 11–44; Elliott-Binns, 159–61).
Second, the creation of the people Israel by the giving of
Torah—the law is designated as logos alētheias in the LXX
(Ps 118:43, 142, 151; Mal 2:6). Finally, the creation of the
Christian community by the word of the Gospel—in several NT
passages, the expression logos alētheias has precisely that
connotation (see esp. 2 Cor 6:7; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; 2 Tim
2:15; also Acts 26:25; Gal 2:5, 14; 1 Tim 3:15); see Edsman,
“Schöpfung,”). In
this final case, the entire clause would remind us of
the language about regeneration or rebirth through the
Gospel found in passages such as John 1:13; 3:3–5; 1
Cor 4:15; Gal 4:19; Philemon 10, and especially 1 Pet
1:23–25." [Johnson, L. T. (2008).
Vol. 37A: The letter of James: A new translation with
introduction and commentary. Anchor Yale Bible (197–198).
New Haven; London: Yale University Press.]
"The idea of
the new birth is actually found in Judaism and flourished in
Palestine via Hellenism. It is true that the rabbinic notion
of the new creation does not include in the new spirit or
heart of the proselyte the NT concept of moral renewal in
our Christian rebirth. Elliott-Binns,127a among others,
declares that “James knows nothing of any ‘new’ creation” in
Christian theology: that was “later”;
but it is known in Eph. 2:10 and the Fourth Gospel,
which (3:3, 7, like James 1:17) has the word for “from
above”: this remarkable coincidence suggests that in
both these sources we have evidence of yet another verbum Christi."
[Adamson, J. B. (1976). The Epistle of James. The New
International Commentary on the New Testament (77). Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.]
"Third, birth
or new
birth theology is attested in all forms of Christian
tradition, whether in Paul
(Eph. 1:5; Rom 12:2; 1 Cor. 4:15; Tit. 3:5), Peter
(1 Pet. 1:3, 23), or John
(Jn. 1:13; 3:3–8; Jn 1 3:9; 4:10)." [Davids, P. H. (1982).
The Epistle of James: A commentary on the Greek text. New
International Greek Testament Commentary (89). Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.]
But
also
that the 'seed' image hearkens back to the Parable of the
Sower, bringing the two traditions closer to together:
The “word” as a
reference to the gospel of truth has its roots in Jesus’s
“seed” parables (see Matt. 13:18–43, where the “seed” of the
parable of the sower is interpreted as the λόγος [logos,
word] of the kingdom, the gospel). In John 17:17 Jesus’s
prayer makes it explicit: “Your word is truth.” ...The
imagery of seeding with the word of truth is picked up again
in 1:21, where the implanted word is like seed planted in
the ground, or semen in the womb, that produces new life
(cf. 1 Pet. 1:23–25; 1 John 3:9)." [McCartney, D. G. (2009).
James. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
(110). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
So,
James
provides no data to support for the hypothesis, and some
data to contradict it.
1st Peter (ethics).
First
Peter
is actually similar in tone and theme to what we have seen
so far. Ethics are 'tightened up' because the end is certain
(because of the past), yet unknown and irreversible (because
of the plan of God). This eschatological perspective is not
simply of judgment, but also of hope--we can have confidence
that our present actions have eternal/kingdom implications.
The
future
is in the present (in the 'Church age') as it was in the
past (in the life/death/victory of Jesus), yet we hope for a
fuller manifestation of the intensity of God's salvific work
in the Eschaton. This timing perspective is held in common
by all NT figures, from John the Baptist on.
In
1st Peter 4.7 we see this:
The
end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled
and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.
8 Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since
love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Show hospitality
to one another without grumbling. 10 As each has
received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good
stewards of God’s varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as
one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who
serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in
everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To
him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
"The sense of
the perfect ἤγγικεν (“has come near”) emphasizes not so much
the mere approach of the end as
its presence in the end-time events that are already
under way (e.g., 4:17), pointing to the
imminence of the consummation.
The
announcement of the imminent end using the stem ἐγγ- is
familiar to early Christian tradition,
reflected in the preaching of John
the Baptist (Matt 3:2) and of Jesus (Matt
4:17; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9, 11) and in
epistolary tradition (Rom 13:12;
Phil 4:5; Heb 10:25; Jas 5:8; Rev 1:3; cf. 1 Cor 7:29; Rev
22:20 for the same sense but without the stem ἐγγ-).
Reference to the impending end is often used, as it is here,
as the basis for paranesis,
since knowledge that there is an end of time and a
judgment gives to the present its seriousness and its
meaning. Although the phrase πάντων
δὲ τὸ τὲλος ἤγγικεν is unique to 1 Peter, therefore, the
point belongs to common Christian tradition." [Achtemeier,
P. J. (1996). 1 Peter: A commentary on First Peter (E. J.
Epp, Ed.). Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on
the Bible (293–294). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.]
In
this
sample passage, we have an
eschatological statement and the ethical imperatives
drawn from it. Are the imperatives more like
'management interim ethics' or 'upheaval interim ethics'?
"He describes
how to live life with an end-time perspective (therefore). Christians
do
not sell all their possessions and stand on a hilltop
waiting to see Jesus in the clouds. Instead
an end-time perspective drives them to serious
prayer with a watchful attitude. Peter’s
command (aorist imperative) assumes his readers were not
doing this." [Derickson, G. (2010). The First Epistle of
Peter. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament
Commentary (R. N. Wilkin, Ed.) (1164). Denton, TX: Grace
Evangelical Society.]
“Therefore” (oun)
introduces the ethical
implications of eschatology. Jesus taught
responsible living in the light of his return (cf. Luke
12:35–43; 17:26–27). Christians
are not to give way to “eschatological frenzy” but to
practice self-control and be active in prayer.
(Peter had set a negative example in his failure to watch
and pray in the Garden [Matt 26:40–41]." [Blum, E. A.
(1981). 1 Peter. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's
Bible Commentary, Volume 12: Hebrews Through Revelation (F.
E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (246). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.]
"The
exhortation to ethics in light of the end is found not only
in Revelation but also in “many and various” ways throughout
this literature. 1
Peter, for example, saw the moral life in the
light of the “living hope” and “inheritance” secured by the
resurrection (1 Pet 1:3–5), reminding readers that “the end
of all things is near” (1 Pet 4:7), warning them of the
judgment (1 Pet 1:17; 4:17) and urging them to attend to
Christ’s glory (1 Pet 4:13; 5:1). Life
in the light of the end is in 1 Peter, no less than
in Revelation, patient endurance of suffering,
“sharing Christ’s suffering”
(1 Pet 4:13) and his glory (1 Pet 5:1)." [Martin, R. P.,
& Davids, P. H. (2000). Dictionary of the later New
Testament and its developments (electronic ed.). Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]
"The previous
paragraph ended with a reference to the final judgment (v.
5), death, and the resurrection (v. 6). Hence, it is not
surprising that v. 7 opens with a reference to the end of
history.... The reason the end is near is that the ministry,
death,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ have inaugurated the
last days (cf. 1 Cor 10:11; 1 John 2:18). In
the New Testament the theme that the end of history is
imminent is often sounded (Rom 13:11–12; Phil 4:5; Heb
10:23–25; Jas 5:7–8; Rev 1:3; 22:10). All the following
exhortations in this paragraph draw an inference from the
coming of the end. See the “therefore” (oun) in the middle
of v. 7. Because the end is near, believers should live in
the following way. ... The
imminence of the end should function as a stimulus to action
in this world. The knowledge that believers
are sojourners and exiles, whose time is
short, should galvanize them to make their lives count now.
We
might expect a call for extraordinary
behavior, thinking something unusual would
be demanded in light of the arrival of the end. Peter
exhorted his readers, however, to pursue virtues that
are a normal part of New Testament paraenesis."
[Schreiner, T. R. (2003). Vol. 37: 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The New
American Commentary (210–211). Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers.]
This
ethic
is still in the 'patient endurance' and 'focus on the
eternal' categories:
"The
end of all things is near:
The second coming is not in view here as much as is the
transience of all that pertains to the closing present
age. When he goes on to admonish readers to
be clear minded and self-controlled, Peter is not seeking to calm over-excited
readers keyed up by the anticipation of Christ’s
return, a situation Paul once had to
address (2 Thess. 2:1–2). The readers are bidden to hold loosely to earthly
commitments and not to let their attention be unduly
absorbed by them. They are to be
clear minded about their true priorities and
self-controlled, calm, in their consideration of all that
concerns their life. The reason for this watchful
self-discipline? So
… you can pray. This maintains uncluttered
lines of communication with the Lord, both to discern his
will and to receive his directions for carrying it out. Being
too caught up with worldly affairs and being confused by
their attendant worries can ruin prayer-life
and spoil spiritual relationships, both with God and with
fellow Christians." [Hillyer, N. (2011). 1 and 2 Peter,
Jude. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (125). Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books.]
"Peter is
saying that because his readers are living in the last stage
of a divinely initiated process, whose
outcome has already been assured by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ (1:3; 3:22), their behavior
should reflect that reality. The end of all things is the
basis (οὖν, oun, therefore) for four
exhortations that flesh out in practical terms
the resources needed for the Christian community to be an
alternate society in which its members may take refuge from
the rejection of a hostile society. Peter gives four
practical ways that his readers are to live out Christ’s
victory in Christian community:
1.
Think rightly and be clear-minded so you can pray.
2.
Persist in a love for one another that “covers” sin.
3.
Be graciously hospitable to fellow believers without
complaining.
4.
Serve one another with the gifts of grace you have
received.
"Peter wants
his readers to live in light of the reality he has just
asserted in 4:7, that everything (pantōn) is coming to its
final outcome as judged by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Nothing and no one is exempt from the redemptive process
that will bring deliverance to some and condemnation to
others. Therefore, the Christian worldview vitally involves
all things." [Jobes, K. H. (2005). 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament (276). Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic.]
Peter
shares
the same eschatological perspective as James, but draws a
different imperative from it:
"Peter’s adoption of this
terminology from the Gospel tradition corresponds to
that of James, except that James’s
reminder that “the coming of the Lord is near” (James 5:8)
is more a word of comfort to the oppressed than a call to
alertness or action. ... . Peter’s meaning is neither that
the present age has reached its end nor that the end lies
somewhere in the indefinite future. His meaning is that the
end will be very soon, although
he has no interest in setting dates.
There is time for action,
but no time to waste. Peter sees a
continuity between the present situation and the last
decisive intervention of God through Jesus Christ (cf. vv
12, 17). In a sense the end-time events are under way; the
“end of all things,” although still in the future, is very
close at hand." [Michaels, J. R. (1998). Vol. 49: 1 Peter.
Word Biblical Commentary (245). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]
Thus,
the
eschatologically-based ethics in 1 Peter do not provide any
support for the 'upheaval interim ethics' hypothesis.
........................................................................
Tanknote:
Scholars note that the NT authors uniformly avoid making
'timing' statements [Cf. Walls: "The departure of the Son of
man to God was only a temporary phenomenon, for he would be
revealed (1 Cor. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7) and would bring about the
times of restoration of all things foretold by the prophets
(Acts 3:21). That was an event not far distant (Rom. 13:11;
Rev. 22:20), though
the New Testament writers are uniformly unwilling to be
too specific about the exact date (Mark 9:1,
13:32; 1 Thess. 5:1; cf. 2 Thess. 2:2–9)." (Walls, Jerry L.
(2007-12-03). The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology (Oxford
Handbooks) (p. 35). Oxford University Press. Kindle
Edition.")]
I
find it interesting that none of the NT authors who use the
language of imminence invoke the 'before the end of this
generation' terminology. All of the 'coming soon', 'end is
near', or 'end of the ages' language units never
set a timing bracket. This is simply
unfathomable (IMO) under the Jesus-as-failed-predictor
model. If the passages which are recorded in the Synoptics
and which are understood as having 'timing indicators' were
truly understood as such by Jesus' followers, it is striking
that NONE of those indicators show up in the earliest
literature of the epistles. There is plenty of 'any day
now', but none of 'before the generation passes'
terminology. We even have two 'evil
generation' passages--Acts 2.40 and Philp
2.15--but no reference to timing of the Eschaton in such
terms. Even if the church later 'watered down' the Markan
synoptic passages, there is zero evidence that this occurred
in the earliest epistles, and almost no conceivable way such
a 'rewording' of those epistles could have occurred.
Epistles which are 'sequels' of sorts (e.g. 2 Thess, 2 Cor)
interact with and qualify material in the earlier letters,
but there is no re-casting of eschatological expectation
toward a 'watered down' version. In some cases, in fact, it
can be argued that the opposite direction might have
obtained (e.g., 2 Peter seems more 'apocalyptic' than 1
Peter--even though it has the 'delay rationale' in it--as
does 2 Thess versus 1 Thess). To me, this is a fatal flaw in
the 'failed expectation' theory. Pervasive eschatology and
frequent apocalyptic imagery is simply not enough to 'prove'
the theory--we
need some type of repetition or rehearsal of the alleged
'timing' language of Jesus to show up in the earliest
epistles, and then
we need some re-interpretation of that language in a latter
work (as some suggest occurs in the later Synoptics).
Furthermore,
it doesn't make sense (under this theory) that we have
scores of eschatological and even apocalyptic passages
in the Synoptics and early epistles, but we only
have 2-4 passages which could even be CONSIDERED to
have hard-stop timing indicators in them
in the Synoptics (and none in the epistles). This is just
the 'wrong type of ratio' for such a theory. All the
eschatological and apocalyptic passages can be 'predicted'
from the Hebrew Bible prophetic content (with its 'uncertain
timing' perspective) and 'validated' by the 2nd
Temple literature content. Ethical passages that are
connected to eschatological expectations (and there are
plenty) would need to have some argument based on more
concrete 'timing' to support this, rather than only on
eschatological events of the past (e.g. the Cross,
Resurrection, Outpouring of the Spirit) or on
unknown-timing-but-absolutely-certain eschatological events
of the future (e.g. judgment, rewards/retribution, cosmic
renewal, glorified bodies, God dwelling in our midst).
The
mix
of textual data just seems 'wrong' under such a hypothesis
(even at a gist-only level, I might add).
.....................................
2nd Peter (ethics)
This
will
be the last NT author we look at here, under ethics. If we
show that Paul, the Book of Acts, James, and Peter do not
teach an 'upheaval interim ethic', then we have certainly
shown that the statement 'all
the way through the rest of the NT' is
clearly inaccurate and untrustworthy.
2 Peter (and the
similar epistle of Jude)
is very apocalyptic, of course, even defending this position
against 'scoffers'. It invokes cosmic renewal and judgment
'by fire'. Yet it still offers a 'steady state' or
'management type interim ethic':
"To contend
effectively in the present and to prepare for the future, it
is argued, requires a recalling of the past. Thus 2 Peter
outlines an
interim ethic for the present (1:5–11, 19;
3:11–18) which is framed and guided by lessons from the past
(prophecy: 1:19–21; 3:2; world history: 2:4–10a, 15–16;
3:5–6; apostolic witness: 1:12–18; 3:1–4) and by
the prospect of judgment and cosmic renewal in the
future (3:7, 8–10). Basic to this ethic is
the assurance of God’s continual and consistent action in
human affairs in past (1:3–4; 2:2–8; 3:5–6), present
(1:20–21; 2:3, 9–10a; 3:8–9) and future (3:7, 10–12). ...
Linked to its theological eschatology of the endtime, 2
Peter proposed an “interim
ethics” for Christians awaiting the dawning
of the final day of the Lord. Between
Christian
conversion and cosmic consummation believers were to
grow in the gifts and their stability and salvation by
resisting the seduction of Christian subversives who
deviate from the prophetic and apostolic norms of
truth; avoid the corruption of the world by leading
holy, godly and peaceful lives in accord with the way
of righteousness; and with patient confidence await
the promised day of the Lord."
[Elliott, J. H. (1992). Peter, Second Epistle of. In D. N.
Freedman (Ed.), . Vol. 5: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
(D. N. Freedman, Ed.) (286–287). New York: Doubleday.]
"The letters of
Jude and 2 Peter defend a life in accord with the tradition
against the heretics who “promise freedom” (2 Pet 2:19) but
“pervert the gospel of God into licentiousness” (Jude 4; cf.
2 Pet 2:2). Against those who “scoff” at the promise of
Christ’s return (Jude 18; 2 Pet 3:3–4),
they remind their readers to live “lives of holiness and
godliness” while they wait for the end (2 Pet
3:11)." [Martin, R. P., & Davids, P. H. (2000).
Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments
(electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]
"Our
author does not engage in speculation about the timing
of forthcoming eschatological events. He rather sees the
final events of the world described above as motivation
for Christian conduct. As in other passages of
the NT, Christian ethics are rooted within eschatology
(Mark 13:32–37; Rom. 13:12; 1 Cor.
15:58; Eph. 5:11–13; Phil. 4:5; Col. 4:5; 1 Thess. 5:1–11; 2
Tim. 4:1–2; James 5:8–9; 1 Pet. 1:13–17; 4:7; 1 John 2:28).
The false teachers have tried to refute the reality of
coming judgment, and their speculation has formed the
foundation of their immoral teaching. They understand the
delay in judgment as an excuse to embrace an immoral
lifestyle. Peter, on the other hand, affirms the terrible
reality of coming judgment, and this then becomes a
fundamental motivation in his ethics. He begins by briefly
echoing his previous teaching (2 Pet. 3:7, 10): τούτων οὕτως
πάντων λυομένων (toutōn houtōs pantōn lyomenōn, Since all
these things will be destroyed in this way). The verb λύω
(here as a present participle used adverbially, understood
as a future event in accordance with v. 10) could be used to
describe the destruction of a building (Josephus, J.W. 6.1.4
§32; Sib. Or. 3.409; John 2:19) or a ship (Acts 27:41), but
here, as in verse 10, it summarizes the events of the final
judgment, when the world as he knows it will be destroyed."
[Green, G. L. (2008). Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament (332–333). Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic.]
One
very
interesting aspect to the expectations of 2 Peter, though,
is the possible 'flexibility' of the Eschaton.
We
had
noted earlier that there is some
level of flexibility in the 'day and hour'
of the events of the end time. [We cited a passage from
Allison's writings in the NIDB.], and 2 Peter has one of the
main texts used to illustrate this.
When
2
Peter uses the phrase 'hastening
the coming of the day of God' [and some of
the cosmic renewal language],
it is consistent with some notions of 'conditional
timing' (like we have seen in the judgment
passages of the Hebrew Bible). Compare the remarks of
commentators, who list the parallels in other Jewish
writings around that time:
"Another
element of godly living is expectation of the future day.
Peter relates this to the idea of “speed[ing] its coming.” But
how can Christians hasten what God will do? Peter would
probably answer by saying that prayer (Matt 6:10) and
preaching (Matt 24:14) are the two principal means to
bring people to repentance. To the crowd that
gathered after the healing of the lame beggar at the
Beautiful Gate in Jerusalem Peter proclaimed, “Repent, … so
that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing
may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ”
(Acts 3:19–20). [Blum,
E. A. (1981). 2 Peter. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 12: Hebrews Through
Revelation (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (287). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House.]
σπεύδοντας,
“hastening,” could perhaps mean “striving for” (Reicke), but
the Jewish background is decisive in favor of “hastening.”
Isa 60:22b (RSV: “in its time I will hasten it”; LXX does
not give this meaning) was the
basis for a whole series of Jewish texts which speak of
God hastening the time of the End (Sir 33:8
[36:7] LXX: σπεῦσον καιρόν, “hasten the time”; 2 Apoc. Bar.
20:1–2; 54:1; 83:1; Bib. Ant. 19:13; Barn. 4:3; cf. also Isa
10:23 LXX). It featured in the debate between R. Eliezer and
R. Joshua (see Comment on v 9). R. Joshua interpreted it to
mean that redemption would come at the appointed time,
irrespective of repentance, but (in one version of the
debate: y. Ta˓an. 1:1) R. Eliezer taught that it meant that
the Lord would hasten the coming of redemption in response
to Israel’s repentance. A similar interpretation is
attributed to R. Joshua b. Levi (C A.D. 250): “If you have
merit, I will hasten it; if not, [it comes] in its time” (y.
Ta˓an. 1:1; b. Sanh. 98a; Cant. Rab. 8:14). Usually, as in
Isa 60:22, it is God who is said to hasten the coming of the
End, but R. Eliezer’s view implies that, since God hastens
in response to repentance, repentance itself might be said
to hasten the End. Later rabbinic texts actually say that
repentance (b. Yoma 86b, attributed to the early
second-century R. Jose the Galilean; cf. also y. Ta˓an. 1:1;
b. Sanh. 97b; Acts 3:19) or charity (b. B. Bat. 10a,
attributed to R. Judah, C A.D. 150) brings repentance
nearer. An
important parallel which demonstrates the influence of
these Jewish ideas in the Christian milieu from which 2
Peter derives is 2 Clem 12:6: “When you do these things
[good works, especially sexual purity], he [Jesus] says,
the kingdom of my Father will come” (and cf.
the exhortation to immediate repentance in 13:1; on this
text, see Strobel, Untersuchungen, 126–27). Cf. also Herm.
Sim. 10:4:4. " [Bauckham, R. J. (1998). Vol. 50: 2 Peter,
Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (325). Dallas: Word,
Incorporated.]
"The
notion of God hastening the day of judgment or
vindication is picked up in the literature of early
Judaism, for the most part making it clear
that God, not the believers, is hastening the day (e.g.,
Sir. 36:10; 2 Bar. 20:1–2; 54:1; 83:1; L.A.B. 19:13). In
rabbinic circles another tradition affirms that God
hastens or delays the day based on Israel’s repentance
or lack of repentance (see esp. b. Sanh.
97b–98a; see also y. Taʿan. 1:1; b. Yoma 86b), though it is
uncertain that any of these traditions reach back to Peter’s
time. Some
have interpreted Acts 3:19–20 in the same light:
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be
wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
and that he may send the Messiah.…” (2) The
need for a renewal of creation is also widely recognized
in this literature, though usually not with
the terminology of “a new heaven and a new earth” or the
like (e.g., Jub. 1:29; 1 En. 45:4–5; 91:16; 2 Bar. 32:6;
47:2; 4 Ezra 7:71; L.A.B. 3:10)." [Beale, G. K., &
Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of
the Old Testament (1060). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK:
Baker Academic; Apollos.]
"Because God
retards his judgment due to his desire that sinners should
repent (3:9),
this repentance will accelerate “the coming of the day
of God” (cf. Matt. 6:10; 24:14; Acts
3:19–21). A number of Jewish texts similarly speak of
the way God will hasten the end
(Isa. 60:22; Sir. 36:7 LXX [36:10 Eng.]; 2 Esd. [4 Ezra]
4:26; 2 Bar. 20.1–2; 83.1). Although God is the one who
effects the acceleration, he brings it to pass with
reference to human repentance, a thought later reflected in
some rabbinic literature (b. Sanh. 97b, 98a; b. Yoma 86b;
Str-B 1:163–65)." [Green, G. L. (2008). Jude and 2 Peter.
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (334).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
"Rabbis
disagreed
among themselves as to whether the end of the age was at
a time fixed by God or whether it could be hastened by
Israel’s repentance and obedience. In this
context, Christians hasten the coming of the end by missions
and evangelism (cf. Mt 24:14), thereby enabling the
conversion of those for whose sake God has delayed the end
(2 Pet 3:9, 15)." [Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible
background commentary: New Testament (2 Pe 3:12). Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]
"We may be surprised
to see that Peter spoke of hastening the day of God.
Some understand this to say that we should be diligent to
prepare for the day, but this is not the most natural sense
of the verb (cf. Luke 2:16; 19:5–6; Acts 20:16; 22:18). Peter
clearly taught that believers can advance or hasten
the arrival of God’s day by living godly lives. We
think here of the prayer, “Your kingdom come” (Matt
6:10). Surely the idea is that our prayer has some
impact on when the kingdom arrives.
Such an idea was current in Judaism as well, for some rabbis
taught that God would fulfill his promises if Israel would
repent (cf. b. Sanh. 98a). Acts
3:19–21 appears to teach a similar idea. God would send
his Christ and restore all things if Israel repented
fully." [Schreiner, T. R. (2003). Vol. 37: 1,
2 Peter, Jude. The New American Commentary (390). Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers.]
Be
this
as it may, the ethic itself still falls within the
'management type' of interim ethic, in continuity with the
Synoptics and the other writings we have surveyed so far.
Other NT writings (ethics)
Here
I
can only present a remark or two about a couple of the
remaining NT writings, so
we can see that NT ethics as a whole are consistent (and
therefore are based on a 'mix' of eschatological realities
and expectations, as well as on the work of God in the past
and present).
The
Epistles of John describe life in the 'last
hour'--as one of love-where-you-are:
"The epistles
of John (see John, Letters of) concentrate the Christian
life into the duty of mutual love.
Life in the light of the end in this “last hour” (1 Jn
2:18) is marked by mutual
love, for it is love that marks the (already
but awaited) good future of God: “We know we have passed out
of death into life, because we love the brethren” (1 Jn
3:14). Life in accord with the tradition is marked by
keeping “the commandments” of God (1 Jn 2:3, 4), but John
never identifies “the commandments,” except to say, “This is
his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his
Son Jesus Christ and love one another” (1 Jn 3:23; cf. 4:21;
2 Jn 6). ... This “new commandment” (1 Jn 2:8) is not novel;
it is really an “old” commandment (1 Jn 2:7; 2 Jn. 5). It
stands in continuity not only with the beginning of
Christian preaching and with Jesus’ proclamation
(1 Jn 2:7, 24; 2 Jn 5, 6) but
also with God’s intention from the beginning,
so that the devil’s sin (1 Jn 3:8) and Cain’s were precisely
their violation of the unity and love that mark the heavenly
reign of God. Love is the primal will of God, who “is love”
(1 Jn 4:8, 16), the original and fundamental commandment,
now “perfected” in Christ and in his community. To believe
in this Christ is to stand under the obligation to love; his
death on the cross is the way in which “we know love” (1 Jn
3:16; cf. 1 Jn 4:1–21). The faith that God sent Jesus in the
flesh, that Jesus died on the cross and that the Spirit has
been given expresses itself in love." [Martin, R. P., &
Davids, P. H. (2000). Dictionary of the later New Testament
and its developments (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.]
And
it
reflects the ethics we have seen before: believers have
goods, and because of God's example in Christ, they are
expected to share on the basis of need and opportunity: "By
this we know love, that he laid down his life for us,
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
17 But if
anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in
need, yet closes his heart against him,
how does God’s love abide in him?" (1 Jn
3:16–18).
The Book of Revelation
"Life in the
light of the end was here first of all “patient
endurance.” In the letters to the churches
(Rev 2:1–3:22) the patient endurance John commended and
called for took the shape of faithfulness in spite of the
persecution by the emperor (Rev 2:3, 10, 13; 3:10), the
harassment by the synagogues that had cast them out (Rev
2:9; 3:9) and the accommodation urged and practiced by the
false teachers (Rev 2:2, 6, 14, 15, 20). Patient endurance
required fidelity in their devotion to God (Rev 2:4, 3:15,
16) and
in their love of and service to one another (Rev
2:19) and resistance to the temptations to immorality (Rev
2:14, 20; 3:4) and the seductions of ease (Rev 2:9;
3:17).... Watchfulness
is hardly calculation. “Patient endurance” is not
passivity. To be sure, the Christian
communities in Asia Minor were not called to take up arms to
achieve power; this counterempire was not to plot a coup to
seize economic and political control. But they were called
to be a resistance movement, to defend God’s claim to a
world corrupted and abused by the spiritual and political
powers. They
were called to live courageously and faithfully,
resisting the pollutions of the cult of the emperor,
including its murder, sorcery, idolatry and the lie that
Caesar is Lord (see the vice lists in Rev 9:20–21; 21:8;
22:15)" .[Martin, R. P., & Davids, P. H. (2000).
Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments
(electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]
The Book of Hebrews
This
text
has plenty of eschatology in it, but the moral instruction
is minimal and/or basic. It is a call to 'remember and do',
based on previous commitments by its readers:
"Hebrews
describes itself as a “word of exhortation” (Heb 13:22). There
is little concrete moral instruction in Hebrews. The
concern is not that the church does not know what it
ought to do; it is that the church does not do what it
knows it ought to. The Christian moral
tradition has already informed the consciences of these
people; the task the author undertakes is to exhort them
against inattention to what they know (Heb 2:1), against
disobedience (Heb 4:11), against becoming dull of hearing
(Heb 5:11), against being “sluggish” (Heb 6:12), against
weariness in their “struggle against sin” (Heb 12:4)."
[Martin, R. P., & Davids, P. H. (2000). Dictionary of
the later New Testament and its developments (electronic
ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]
......................................................................
Summary: NT data outside the Synoptics
......................................................................
Overall,
NT
ethics are based largely on the work of God, already
started
in history in the life of Jesus:
"Most NT writings
presume
that God’s salvation in Jesus makes it possible for
those addressed to lead lives worthy of the Lord.
They also presume that individuals are members of Christian
communities in which mutual exhortation takes place. Ethics
is not pursued as an independent topic whose conclusions
must recommend themselves to persons who are not part of a
religious association which worships God and acknowledges
Jesus as Lord. Since
NT writers share a soteriological conviction that the
decisive salvation humans expect from God has already
been realized in Jesus, their rendering of
apocalyptic motifs includes the view that the domination of
evil powers over the cosmos has already been shattered by
the exaltation of the risen Lord to God’s throne (Phil
2:6–11; Rev 1:5–20). Matt 28:16–20 invokes the authority of
the exalted Lord as the basis for a universal preaching of
his teaching. The
NT claims general applicability for its ethical
exhortation on the basis of what God has done in Jesus,
not on the basis of the particular examples of moral
teaching used to describe what “walking in the Spirit” or
“entering the kingdom of God” requires of persons and
communities. ... Since NT exhortation follows upon God’s
eschatological salvation in Christ,
its demands upon human action presume that those
addressed have been freed from bondage to sin, slavery
to passions, and the other handicaps which mar human
life in the “present evil age.” Its writers
do not calculate their advice on the basis of what “weak”
and “corrupted” humans might be asked to achieve.
Forgiveness of sin has already set persons in a new
relationship with God. They are expected to achieve a
life which expresses that reality.
At the same time, the ongoing process of communal
exhortation, forgiveness, and reconciliation (Matt 18:15–35;
Gal 6:1–5; Rom 12:14–18; 14:10–15:13; Jas 4:11–12; 5:16,
19–20) shows that transformation of persons presented a
continuing process of moral conversion. Early Christians
were no more able to generate immediate and stable adhesion
to virtue than their philosopher counterparts. However,
their religious understanding of salvation and divine
judgment provided a
more pressing call addressed to a wider range
of persons than one finds among those converted to the
philosophic life of virtue." [Perkins, P. (1992). Ethics:
New Testament. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), . Vol. 2: The Anchor
Yale Bible Dictionary (D. N. Freedman, Ed.) (656). New York:
Doubleday.]
"As
in
other passages of the NT, Christian ethics are rooted
within eschatology (Mark
13:32–37;
Rom. 13:12; 1 Cor. 15:58; Eph. 5:11–13; Phil. 4:5; Col. 4:5;
1 Thess. 5:1–11; 2 Tim. 4:1–2; James 5:8–9; 1 Pet. 1:13–17;
4:7; 1 John 2:28)." [Green, G. L. (2008). Jude and 2 Peter.
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (332–333).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
And
many
of the NT writers refer to the 'end time' as imminent (in
the senses discussed above) but still maintain the ethical
positions we have seen in the Synoptics and other writings
examined above:
"Peter
encourages the readers to view life in the light of the
approaching end. They should wait
patiently and fervently for Christ’s return.
Even though no one knows when the end will come, Christians
should live in ardent anticipation of the consummation. ...
Many
writers of the New Testament refer to the end of time.
For instance, Paul
tells the Romans to understand their time in relation to the
end, because, he adds, “Our salvation is nearer now than
when we first believed” (Rom. 13:11). The writer
of Hebrews exhorts the readers of his
epistle to meet
together for encouragement; then he notes,
“All the more as you see the Day approaching” (Heb. 10:25).
James
points to the end of time and comforts his oppressed
countrymen with these words: “You too, be patient
and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is
near.… The Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:8–9). And
last, John
alerts his readers to the fact that “this is the last hour”
(I John 2:18). In the early church, then, believers expected
the imminent return of Jesus." [Kistemaker, S. J., &
Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 16: Exposition of the
Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. New Testament
Commentary (166). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.]
But
these
ethical imperatives simply do not reflect a 'short-term'
vision, sometimes associated with apocalyptic 'groups':
"In the New
Testament the theme that the end
of history is imminent is often sounded (Rom
13:11–12; Phil 4:5; Heb 10:23–25; Jas 5:7–8; Rev 1:3;
22:10). ... We have a
typical feature of New Testament eschatology
here. Nowhere
does the New Testament encourage the setting of dates
or of any other kinds of charts. Eschatology is
invariably used to encourage believers to live in a
godly way (cf. Matt 24:36–25:46; Rom
13:11–14; 1 Cor 15:58; Phil 4:4–9; 1 Thess 5:1–11; 2 Pet
3:11–16).
Nor does the New Testament ever invite believers to
withdraw from the world because the end is near
and to gaze at the skies, hoping that the Lord will return
soon. The imminence of the end should function as a stimulus
to action in this world. .... We
might expect a call for extraordinary behavior,
thinking something unusual would be demanded in light
of the arrival of the end. Peter exhorted his readers,
however, to pursue virtues that are a normal part of
New Testament paraenesis."
[Schreiner, T. R. (2003). Vol. 37: 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The New
American Commentary (210–211). Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers.]
So,
unless
I have somehow misunderstood the original intent of
Schweitzer and your blogger friend in their use of 'interim
ethic' (which I doubt--given how the scholars have
discussed/ dismissed it, in Part 2 of this series, and how
your blogger has used the 'leave all' and 'sell all' verses
as illustrations), then I have to say that the NT data is
decidedly against the blogger's hypothesis on this point.
The
'interim
ethic' which shows up in the post-Synoptics
is the same
one that shows up in the Synoptics, and neither
of them can be shown to be an 'upheaval type ethic'
involving disposal of all possessions, membership in a
traveling communal group, and absolution of all
responsibilities to the outside world (including family).
......................................................
Would a putative 'interim ethic' only make sense
(or make 'more sense')
if the NT authors believed in a first-century
eschaton, than if they did not have a concrete time
expectation in mind?
This
is
an interesting question, and something like a 'thought
experiment'.
But
it
would be a waste of time...
It doesn't really have any
bearing
on the truth of the hypothesis, though, since we have seen that there is 'no such
data' to explain in this case. That
is, there is no 'upheaval type interim ethic' in the NT
writings that needs a hypothesis to 'predict it'.
Of
course,
I have already noted how 'odd' it was for there not to be any
mention of 'timing markers' in the NT eschatological
passages, and that 'oddness' extends to any
eschatologically-grounded ethical
passages.
In
other
words, if the blogger's hypothesis were TRUE, then we would
expect at least SOME cases in which readers were 'reminded'
of the alleged timing predictions of Jesus (e.g. something
like 'before the end of the generation' or 'within 25 years,
as a day laborer would count them' [we have such detailed
predictions in the Hebrew Bible--why didn't they show up in
the Synoptics, btw?]). Indeed, we should expect such
reminders to be MANY and perhaps pervasive. Instead, we get
zero. We get the same calls to watchfulness, endurance,
generosity, radically God-centric re-prioritization, and
love-based loyalty that we got from Jesus in the Synoptics.
We get reminders that the time is uncertain but could
literally happen at any time.
As
far
as 'inference to the best explanation' goes, this part of
the hypothesis fails pretty badly, as far as I can tell.
But let's entertain the thought experiment anyway.
Let's
suppose
that the epistles (and events described in the Book of Acts)
were peppered with 'sell all / give all /travel with us'
passages--without
a single reference to a specific timeframe for the
Parousia. We would probably be on defensible
ground to believe that this 'ethic' could be traced back to
Jesus (because of linguistic links and 'multiple
attestations' type of logic). But would we have ANY warrant
to believe that a 'timing pronouncement' on the part of
Jesus was transmitted along WITH the ethic, but never
mentioned in the 'sell/give/follow' passages?
Would it not be much more reasonable to expect that IF the
timing-based ethics were transmitted to the readers, THAT
the timing-basis itself would ALSO be found in the
timing-based ethical passages?
But,
if
we had 'sell all' class directives WITHOUT any timing
markers, then we could not assume anything more than that
this 'sell all' ethic was due to 'less precise'
eschatological expectations.
So,
even
in the thought experiment, the hypothesis is lacking force.
ONLY IF we had BOTH 'upheaval interim ethics' AND at the
same time had TIMING MARKERS (with some plausible link back
to Jesus' words in the Synoptics) in the same NT passages,
would we even be able to take the hypothesis seriously. But
without timing markers, any such interim-ethic will actually
count AGAINST the blogger's hypothesis.
Does Jesus telling
his disciples to leave everything and follow him around
only make sense if Jesus believed that he and they were
to be God’s final messengers before the eschaton.
I
cannot see why this would be the case at all, actually.
Calls
to
vocational ministry TODAY look exactly like what the
apostles did.
For
example,
those called to mission field service 'leave all' in the
same sense as the apostles did. Family relationships are not
severed (eg, Peter, Paul, Jesus), but they are clearly
impacted. All personal property is not given to charity, but
all material ambitions for wealth and prosperity are
completely abandoned. All hopes of 'pleasing the world' are
discarded. Anxiety over 'what to eat' is replaced by the
anxiety over the welfare of those you are called to serve
(cf. 2 Cor 11.28). The prestige of an honored profession is
deemed of lower value than being de-valued by the world for
the higher honor of serving the Lord in His outreach of love
to others.
In
Jesus'
case, the 'leave all and follow' directive could
be just as easily explained as a necessary condition for
effective training. In other words,
if Jesus were planning to 'build an on-going church',
He would have selected a handful of future-leaders and
attempted to give them as much 'exposure time' and 'training
time' as possible. And this would have looked a lot like
'training camp', where one lives, eats,
interacts with the instructors as much as possible. And this
was the
rabbinic mode of discipleship too ("Jesus is
addressed as Rabbi, mathētēs being the Gk translation of the
Heb talmîd, and the
rabbinic scholars live with the master in order to
follow him in his ways." [Weder, H. (1992).
Disciple, Discipleship D. Martin, Trans.). In D. N. Freedman
(Ed.), . Vol. 2: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (D. N.
Freedman, Ed.) (209). New York: Doubleday.])
This
is
at least as plausible an explanation of the 'leave and
follow' as is the 'final messengers' theory, and has
historical antecedents as positive support for the
explanation.
So, withoutsome additional argumentation or data, I cannot see why we should accept this point.
------------------------------------
Ok, On to Part FIVE...[spinmequick5.html]
.....................................................