Ben Witherington

When a novel by an unknown Christian writer which is basically privately published, goes to the top of the NY Times fiction bestseller list, mostly on the basis of word of mouth, you know something is up. More particularly you know it seems to be a God thing, since word of mouth doesn’t really travel that far that fast from say the woods outside of Portland Oregon. This however is the second important Christian work to emanate from that general neighborhood (the first being Blue like Jazz), and when it is a neighborhood not generally known for its Christian ethos, one is forced to take notice. Furthermore, when people as diverse as Wynonna Judd and Eugene Peterson and the producer of ABC News (Patrick M. Roddy) are giving testimonials to this first time novel, Peterson even suggesting it might do for our generation what Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did a long time ago, then again, something is afoot, as Sherlock would say. Since I about to publish my first novel, I had an added reason to ask—‘What’s Up with Dat?’

I want to say from the outset that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this novel, as it involves a lot of interesting theologizing about God and the divine-human encounter, and it clearly has struck a nerve with many people who are longing to have a close encounter with God of the first sort. I am happy this novel can provoke thought and stir up people to reconsider the God of the Bible and what having a relationship with God might mean and be like. And because it is a work of fiction, no one should evaluate this work as if it were an exercise in systematic theology as if it were Barth’s Dogmatics for the Emerging Church, as its aims are much more modest. But there is both good theologizing and bad theologizing that can go on in popular fiction (remember the Da Vinci Code), and so it is certainly fair to ask what is going on in this novel and why has it struck a nerve. This novel is not a literary masterpiece. Its value stands or falls on some of the provocative and interesting things it says about our relationship with God, and it is in regard to its theology that I want to comment in this post. I accept that this novel has gone through various revisions, and rewrites, and could be called a work in progress. What I would suggest is that it needs considerable further theological refinement.

One of things that is up is we are in a post-modern situation and this makes people in some cases more open to things spiritual, but paradoxically less open to traditional church and religion in general (if I see one more bumper sticker saying ‘I believe in Jesus, not Christianity’, or ‘I believe in Jesus, not religion/church etc.’ I think I will be forced to honk). This novel most certainly breathes that ‘Jesus without traditional religion air’. For example, late in the novel Jesus says to the main character in the novel Mackenzie Phillips who is turned off by traditional church “that’s because you’re only seeing the institution, a man-made system. That’s not what I came to build. What I see are people and their lives, a living breathing community of all those who love me, not buildings and programs…Not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands, and not sitting in endless meetings staring at the back of people’s heads…just sharing life†(pp. 179-80). It’s all about relationships, and not about religion, according to this approach. And while no one would deny it’s very much about living and loving relationships, the truth of the matter is that it is a false dichotomy to separate Jesus from religion, or for that matter organism from organization. Let me give an illustration on the latter point.

Consider for example a very simple organism indeed—the single cell amoeba a form of protozoa. Now the amoeba is nothing if not flexible. It can subdivide over and over again. But within that larger flexible entity there is organization—there is a nucleus for example, without which it could not exist. It also has pseudo-pods by which it moves and vacuoles by which it maintains its equilibrium. Without structure, order and organization it could not ever be even a viable living thing. This is in fact true of all organisms, and that includes the church, if one wants to call it an organism. That doesn’t mean that human beings aren’t capable of over-institutionalzing things, or ossifying some of the structures, but to pit organism over against organization, with one seen as living and the other dead, one God-given, and the other man-made is absolutely a false dichotomy when it comes to the church.

There is no such thing in heaven or on earth as an organism without organization, order, structure, form, otherwise it would have no distinct shape, purpose, or being. And that applies to God, the church, as well as to all created things—remember the story of how God created the universe in a very specific order with very specific properties? Well it’s always been like that. Creativity takes a particular form and shape, bring order out of chaos or a disparate group of elements. Spontaneity is not particularly more God-like than something that was planned before the foundations of the world and executed over a long period of time. And why we should think an organism like the church needs to normally be completely spontaneous in order to be ‘alive’ is a mystery. Perhaps it is an over-reaction to spending too much time in moribund or unwell churches. One thing I know about real works of art--- they take time to create, and care, and skill, and form, and substance. This is as true of a Matisse masterpiece as of God’s creation of the universe. But I digress.

Another element in the creative theologizing in this book is what is said about the Trinity. Another of the bad guys in this novel is ‘hierarchy’ whether in human relationships or in the Godhead. Consider what is said on p. 122—“Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and enforcement of rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promoting it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship†Or on the immediately previous page ‘Papa’ (aka God the Father) tells Mack “We [i.e. the Trinity] are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command. What you are seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power…Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually this is your problem, not ours.â€

There are some real problems with this sort of formulation, especially when one comes to deal with the fact that the Son is the only begotten of the Father, and only the Son dies on the cross, and no one comes to the Father except through the Son, and no one receives the Spirit except if the Father and Son sends the Spirit. Even in the most revealing of Gospels when it comes to the relationship between Father and Son, the Fourth Gospel, we have a very clear picture of a functional subordination of the Son to the Father—he can only do and say what his Father gives him to do and to say, even though he is fully equal in being to the Father and can be called God in John 1 and 20 (see my study The Shadow of the Almighty). In other words, hierarchy and subordination are not inherently the enemies of equality of being. There is a reason why the church Fathers suggested a triangle rather than a circle best images the Trinity—it has a certain order and shape, just as the relationships within the Trinity do. The image of God in this novel is even pushed so far as to say that following “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed.†(p. 98). This statement is closer to Monarchianism, a heresy the early church rightly condemned than it is to Biblical Christianity.

The Father and the Spirit did not become incarnate as the Son did, and did not assume the limitations the Son did at the point of the Incarnation. Only the Son took on flesh. The three-ness of God must be stressed just as much as the oneness of being or ‘ousia’ of God, and in that three-ness there are things that can be said of the Son that cannot be said of Father or Spirit (for example the Father is unbegotten from all eternity, the Son alone died on the cross, and the Spirit did not become Incarnate with or as Jesus). Equally problematic is the comment on p. 100—“I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely the one.†This for sure is not what the ecumenical councils said about the relationship of Father, Son and Spirit. They said that the three persons of God shared the divine nature or ousia, not that each of the 3 are fully and entirely the one (go back and read up on monarchianism, monothelitism, Sabellianism, and Apollonarianism).

Equality in the Godhead no more means ‘the same’ in all respects, functions, or activities any more than it need mean that in human relationships. If there is a place for subordination and obedience within the Trinity, there is a place for it in human relationships. And furthermore, obedience is not at odds with love--- indeed we are commanded to love in the Bible, and thus the two are rightly spoken of in the same breath—as Jesus says “if you love me, you will keep my commandmentsâ€. Law, order, rule, commandments are not inherently the source of the human problem in the Bible, sin is—which not incidentally begins as an act of disobedience to a specific commandment.

While I certainly agree that some forms of hierarchy can be oppressive, for example a gender specific hierarchy which resulted from the fall when ‘to love and to cherish’ became ‘to desire and to dominate’, the Bible is quite clear that ordering of relationships is a normal and good thing. It is not an accident that children are commandment to obey their parents in various places in the OT (see Proverbs) and the NT (see Paul’s letters). Obedience is the quite concrete shape love can and often should take. But what about the idea of freedom in this book--- both the freedom of God, and the free will of human beings?

I suspect that Calvinists will have even more problems with what is said about freedom in this book than I would, but I too have various serious issues with what is said about freedom in this novel. Let us consider first what is said about human freedom on p. 93: “Does freedom mean that you are allowed to do whatever you want to do? Or we could talk about all the limiting influences in your life that actively work against your freedom. Your family genetic heritage, your specific DNA, your metabolic uniqueness, the quantum stuff that is going on at the subatomic level…Or the intrusion of your soul’s sickeness that inhibits and binds you, or the social influences around you, or the habits that have created synaptic bonds and pathways in your brain. And then there is advertising, propaganda, and paradigms. Inside the confluence of multifaceted inhibitors….what is freedom really?†This is actually one of the best and most interesting passages on freedom in this novel where God reflects on human freedom, and it is precisely these sort of factors that lead to assumptions about materialistic determinism, or biology is destiny and so on. At the very least these factors are inhibitors or limiters of human freedom to some degree. And I would emphasize that human falleness is the biggest inhibitor of all. Apart from the grace of God, human beings are not able not to sin. Apart from God’s grace, we are all in the bondage to sin. The question becomes, does God’s grace work outside of and before we have a personal relationship with God? Fortunately the answer to this is yes, or else none of us would ever repent or have a personal relationship with God at all.

One of the major flash points in the discussion of freedom and the reason for an insistence on it is of course that love is not something that can be forced, compelled, compulsed, pre-determined etc. To have a loving relationship with someone requires a modicum of freedom of choice, at a minimum, and the power of contrary choice. I have stressed this elsewhere in this blog, so I will not belabor the point here, but Young is basically right on this point. But how far and to what degree does this characterize the way God relates to us. At one point Jesus in the novel says “To force my will on you…is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by submission even when your choices are not helpful and healthy.†(p. 146). The concept is then broached about how God has submitted himself to our human choices in various ways. The problem with this is it eliminates part of the Biblical paradox. The Bible is all about divine intervention. God is always intruding into our affairs, like a good parent should when his children are as wayward as we are. Is it really the case that God never rescues us against our will? Does God stand idly by, when a normal human parent would leap in and grab the child about to step out onto a highway and be smashed by a sixteen wheeler? Or listen to the following passage on p. 188. God says:

“Just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies. Don’t ever assume that my using something means I caused it or that I need it to accomplish my purposes. That will only lead to false notions about me. Grace doesn’t depend on suffering to exist, but where there is suffering you will find grace in many facets and colors.†And then God adds “my love is a lot bigger than your stupidity…I used your choices to work perfectly into my purposes.†(p. 192). Now it is clear enough that Young is not an universalist in the sense that he thinks all will ultimately respond positively to God’s will. But when you once allow that God is busy working all things together for good for those who love Him, whether they realize it or not, then it becomes perfectly clear, as also in cases like when God flattened Paul on the road to Damascus that there are times when God doesn’t wait on our permission to do things on our behalf, and in various cases does things that would have been against our wills at the time. And herein lies the mystery—God, by grace both gives humans limited freedom, but is prepared to intervene and make corrections, redirections etc. for God is free as well, and there is something more important than human beings ‘having it their independent way’ and that is rescuing them. A drowning person can’t save themselves, they require a radical rescue—but how they respond to that rescue thereafter, whether in loving gratitude or with a bad attitude—well that’s another matter and involves human volition.

In other words, the answer to the question of why tragedy happens in the world is not just because God won’t violate our wills, or just because our wills are bent and fallen, and we are the orchestrators of our own tragedies. It’s far more complicated than that. If God’s relationship with us is at all like a relationship between a good parent and petulant child, then yes there are times when the human will is and must be violated to rescue the child from disaster. Thank goodness my parents cared enough about me to do that on occasion. On most occasions loving and leading and modeling was enough. On some occasions it was not.

The God of the Bible is not just a wistful wooer of fallen humankind. The God of the Bible is an intervener and a Lord over all. And while we are at it—the Jesus of the Bible is not Mr. Rogers--- he said he was coming back to judge the quick and the dead, as the Book of Revelation makes so very evident. Nor is the Holy Spirit just the one who gives us holy goosebumps, the Spirit is the Spirit of holiness and a refiner’s fire of sanctifying influence.

In other words, the God of the Bible is both a God of justice and mercy, of righteousness and compassion, of love and lordship, of order and creativity, of hierarchy and equality. Unless you can hold these antinomies in tension, you cannot paint a full picture of the Biblical God.

I am thankful for this novel, and its strong stress on the relational and deeply personal nature of our God. I am equally thankful for the message that God is much greater than we could ever think or imagine. I like as well the emphasis on love and freedom, rightly understood, as well as its admission that not all roads lead to God, for Jesus is the way. But on its next lap around the revising track, and before it goes into somebody’s movie, it needs to make a pit stop for some more theological tune ups.

Somewhere along the way, Comic Books became serious, and started calling themselves Graphic Novels. This was well after my senior high years when I stopped reading them for the most part, except on summer vacation. For those of us who grew up with the early DC and Marvel Comics, and then the high camp, low evil Batman TV show starring Adam West, the recent twist in the tale of Batman, starting with 'Batman Begins', and accelerating in 'The Dark Knight' takes some mental adjustment, not to mention a paradigm shift. This movie is sort of Batman meets Greek tragedy, and it is played with all the seriousness of Greek tragedy as well Indeed, this movie brings in the heavy hitters--- Morgan Freeman, and (once more) Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman (Lt. Gordon never was this serious and smart before), Aaron Eckhart and of course Christian Bale and the late lamented Heath Ledger. Once you see this performance of Ledger's you will not only think it is Oscar worthy, you will wonder if playing this demonic role pushed Ledger over the edge. In this movie you get to look directly into the heart of darkness, and the one in whom that heart beats is the Joker. Ledger plays the Joker as sadistic, whilst Jack Nicholson played him more as sarcastic and just a tad too mean. Ledger's portrayal blows away Nicholson's, and is in a whole nother league. Nicholson's Joker actually had friends, Ledger's only has fiends.

One of the problems in doing a movie like this, where we have the titantic struggle between good and evil, is that it is so much easier for fallen human beings to play evil well, than to play good without appearing sappy, maudlin, 'too good to be real', and other epithets. Yet Christian Bale does a good job of being good, without pretending to be letter perfect. The Batman, as he is frequently dubbed in this movie, is alone in this film, not having his trusty side kick Robin, but thank goodness Alfred and Lucius Fox (the sort of CEO of Wayne Enterprises) are there to help. And as it turns out, he needs all the help he can get, because the Joker is not joking around. Indeed, he seems to be able to do 10 hard things before breakfast including making the Chicago mob do his bidding.

So what should we think of this 2 hour and 30 minute attempt at an epic? First of all, this is not the filming of a comic book, and it is not played like a comic book. Erase that image from your minds and by no means go to this movie if you are looking for a family film that is light popcorn type entertainment--- another bit of summer lint to add to the American navel whilst lying on a beach. Indeed, I would definitely NOT recommend you take any young children to this movie. One mother in front of me had a small child with her who ended up howling and having to be removed. This movie is not for the young, the squeamish, or the faint of heart. It has graphic images worthy of a 'graphic' novel. It also is mostly dark, since bats come out at night, as does evil.

The movie is immaculately filmed, though it could have stood to be a bit shorter, and some of the lines could have been delivered a little more slowly to allow them to sink in. There is in addition the stretching of credulity to the breaking point at various junctures (how exactly had the Joker managed to wire both a whole hospital and all the ferries in Chicago for explosion without anyone noticing anyway, and how exactly did he manage to extricate himself from that Chicago jail cell?). Batman is not played in this movie as an anti-hero, but like Hancock, one could say he is a reluctant hero, who would rather have a normal life instead engaging in daring do. Yet he does have an ethical geiger counter, unlike the Joker who is not motivated by either love or money or any sort of twisted Mafia-like principles. He is the kind of person who simply likes to watch the world burn, by his own hands, as Lucius Fox warns Batman. It is hard to catch or trap someone who has no normal vulnerabilities or predictabilities.

I must say that on the whole this movie has more Oscar potential than any other drama from the summer season, but I liked Ironman better as a movie. It had more redeeming qualities, and was not unrelentingly dark, and the dialogue was better as well.

But this movie has gravity, a very specific gravity, and it forces one to face the heart of darkness, and realize that evil is not just being 'not nice'-- it is depravity, it is the destruction of all that is good and true and beautiful, and even a small measure of good is better than none in a fallen world. In the battle between good and evil, this movie insists, we must take sides, but beware when your heroes have not merely feet of clay, but wear gravity boots as well. That brings the subject matter right back down to earth, for only God is truly and inherently good.

Here is the link to the brief discussion on the Gabriel Stone which I was involved in this week:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/07/11/wedeman.gabriel.cnn?iref=videosearch

What follows in this post is the verbatim of the full text of Howard Snyder's review of 'Pagan Christianity' which appeared this spring in the Revitalization magazine (Vol. 15 No. 1 Spring 2008) edited by Asbury's Prof. Stephen O'Malley. Howard gave me his permission to reprint it here. What it demonstrates, in my view, is that Howard thinks 'Pagan Christianity' has some good critiques of the failures of Institutional Churches, but thinks that the way forward is through revitalization movements, NOT the model suggested in Viola and Barna's work. He is also clear enough that the reading of early church history in 'Pagan Christianity' is flawed in various ways, as is its naive understanding of what the NT has to say about Christian community, its structure and its leadership.
---------------------

What’s the Fuss about “Pagan Christianity�

Frank Viola’s 2002 book Pagan Christianity: Exploring

the Roots of Church Practices has kicked up some

fuss since it was revised with the help of George Barna

and recently released under the Barna/Tyndale imprint.

This is a ground-clearing book. Many Christians

will be surprised—maybe shocked—to learn how much

contemporary “Christian†practice has no biblical basis whatsoever.

The question is: So what? Is such development merely the appropriate

fruit of gradual adaptation to changing circumstances? Or

is today’s church guilty of the charge Jesus leveled against the Pharisees:

“You nullify the word of God by your traditions†(Mt. 15:6)?

Legitimate adaptation and contextualization, or betrayal?

Viola (and now apparently Barna) believe the answer is “betrayal.â€

They celebrate those who have “left institutional Christianityâ€

and have begun meeting in unstructured house churches—seen

here as the only legitimate form of the church.

The authors summarize: “The DNA of the church produces certain

identifiable features. Some of them are: the experience of authentic

community, a familial love and devotion of its members one

to another, the centrality of Jesus Christ, the native instinct to gather

together without ritual, every-member functioning, the innate desire

to form deep-seated relationships that are centered on Christ, and

the internal drive for open-participatory gatherings. We believe that

any church that obstructs these innate characteristics is unsound, and

therefore, unbiblical†(p. 263).

One can hardly argue with that, except

for the idea that it is possible for groups to meet “without ritual.â€

I have considerable sympathy with the book’s argument. Contemporary

Christians, in my view, are not self-critical enough of

the ways they do church—whether liturgical Protestants, revivalist

evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, seeker-sensitive congregations,

or “emerging†churches (not to mention the Roman

Catholic and Orthodox traditions). Most of us do not pay enough

attention to what the Bible plainly teaches about the nature and

practice of the church as Body of Christ. So I wish church leaders

everywhere would calmly read and reflect on this book.

But that is not the end of the story. In the background here is a

deeper question: How do we view changes in church practice over

time?

Legitimate development, or betrayal and maybe even apostasy?

This debate has a long history, tracing back at least to Peter’s

God-prompted decision to have dinner at Cornelius’ house. In the

Middle Ages people were anathematized, imprisoned, denounced, or

burned at the stake depending on how they answered the question.

Here also the issue of revitalization comes in. The logic behind

the Center for the Study of World Christian Revitalization

Movements holds that genuine renewal is not an either/or issue.

Three Approaches to Church History

Traditionally, the church’s development through history has

been seen in one of two ways: The “traditional orthodox†approach

or the “secret history of the faithful remnant†theory.

The Traditional View. The most generally accepted view—the

traditional orthodox interpretation—is that God has guided the

church through history, protecting it from heresy and apostasy, assisting

it to adapt to changing circumstances. The development of

clergy, liturgy, church buildings, and all the rest were the ways in

which the church successfully adjusted as it grew and got more

complex, and the way it extended its influence.

Constantinianism—the development of the church after the

conversion of the Emperor Constantine—is the key test case. In the

traditional orthodox view (celebrated first by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical

History), the success of the church under Constantine was

the great triumph of the church. God’s hand was in it all.

In this view, it is foolish to expect the church today to look like

the New Testament church (which was essentially a network of

house churches with highly flexible leadership patterns). The New

Testament church was the church in embryo; the little seedling that

has now wonderfully put forth branches into all the world.

The Secret History of the Faithful Remnant. The other view, unsurprisingly,

is just the opposite. God has been working down

through history through a mostly hidden underground church. The

“institutional church†is corrupt and largely apostate. But God has an

unbroken succession of the true church that has appeared from time

to time in groups that the official church viewed as heretical or extreme.

This true church has surfaced periodically under names like

Montanists, Priscillians, Anabaptists, Waldensians, and so forth—

and in networks of house churches today.

This view has been advocated by various people—notably the

German Pietist Gottfried Arnold (1666-1714), and today people like

Gene Edwards. Pagan Christianity seems to assume this theory.

In this view, Constantinianism was a great tragedy—the fall of

the church. The only route to fidelity is a return to the New Testament

pattern, some form of restoration to the original model.

The choice here is rather clear-cut. But there is a third way, a

mediating position that can be supported biblically, historically,

theologically, and sociologically.

The Renewal Movement View. This view recognizes the truth in

both the traditional view and the counter-view. Yes, God has been

working through the “institutional church†down through history, despite

its problems. Yes, the church has often been unfaithful, corrupt,

and, in certain times and places, apostate. And yes, God has often

worked through marginal groups—even sometimes rather extreme

groups, like the “Montanists†— to enliven a “faithful remnant.†And

yes, many of these groups were not really heretical doctrinally, yet

were shamefully persecuted and often driven underground.

The renewal-movement view holds that, despite the church’s

frequent unfaithfulness, God has continued to work through “institutionalâ€

Christianity. It also observes that underground “remnantâ€

churches can themselves become corrupt, or dysfunctional (I’ve

known some), or moribund, needing renewal.

Those of us in the Wesleyan tradition note John Wesley’s insights

here. Wesley was outspoken in his denunciation of the failures

of the Anglican Church in his day. Yet he did not abandon it.

His views on the church, drawn largely from the New Testament,

church history, and contemporary groups such as the Moravians,

had much in common with the “secret history†view.

But Wesley felt it was possible (and substantially proved it) to

create a “faithful remnant†movement within the larger “institutionalâ€

church. This was British Methodism during Wesley’s lifetime.

In this view, God has worked throughout history to bring new

life to the church through a series of movements. This dynamic is foreshadowed

already in the Bible, especially in Israel’s history. It can be

documented over the centuries of the church. God has never given up

on the church—even the “institutional church.†Neither should we.

Yet in particular times and places the church may become so unfaithful

that it falls under God’s judgment and may even disappear entirely.

Rethinking “Pagan Christianityâ€

We who find the renewal movement view convincing thus

have a mixed reaction to Pagan Christianity. Though a valuable

contribution, it is neither the last word nor the whole story.

Some specific criticisms: The book speaks of “transformation,â€

but exactly what that means is mostly undefined. The authors

paint with too broad a brush in speaking of “contemporary Christianityâ€

and the “institutional church.†Many “traditional†churches

do demonstrate genuine discipleship, community, and deep spirituality,

whatever their imperfections. The book holds that local

churches should be “autonomous,†despite what the Bible teaches

about translocal networkings of the Body of Christ. And it largely

ignores the contribution of Roman Catholic orders, an “institutionalâ€

form that in many notable instances faithfully embodied

genuine Christianity for centuries.

Two other issues are more fundamental: First, the book’s basic

syllogism is fallacious. It holds that because much church practice is

pagan in origin, therefore such practices should be jettisoned. Viola

writes, “Should we follow a model of church that is rooted in New

Testament principle and example, or should we follow one that finds

its origins in pagan traditions? That is the ultimate question†(p. 264).

But the options are not that simple, and the “model†advocated is not

as unambiguously New Testament as the authors believe.

Second, the authors do not really deal with the key issue of

contextualization. Yes, the New Testament vision of the church

should be normative. But what does that really mean in very diverse

cultural contexts? When it is appropriate to adapt cultural traditions,

even “pagan†ones, and use them for kingdom purposes?

Still, the cumulative weight of Pagan Christianity is impressive.

Christians today who want to see the church be faithful to the

gospel of the kingdom should ask themselves: Which of our current

traditions are consistent with Scripture and help us to be faithful

communities of the kingdom? And which really nullify God’s

Word? If churches confront that question prayerfully while seriously

examining Scripture, many things may change.

–– Howard A. Snyder

N.B. This is a small selection from my forthcoming book of metaphysical poetry with commentary entitled The Living Legacy by myself and Julie Noelle Robertson. It is a work arranged according to the church year, and intended for spiritual formation. Enjoy. BW3

THE SOUND OF THE SOUL

The sound of the soul

At the speed of light

Passed through my brain

And into the night.

Stifling silence

Sensing the sigh

Feeling the longing

Wanting to cry.

The sound of the soul,

Like a get away train

Doppler effect

Plaintive refrain.

Listening intently

Longing to know

Who am I really?

And does it show?

The sound of the soul

Like a voice in a well

Echoing always

Clear as a bell.

Tuning the instrument

Assessing the tone

Looking for harmony

Searching alone.

The sound of the soul

Out of the depths

Heart cry towards heaven

Wordless precepts.

“By him we cry Abba…

Groaning within

Awaiting adoption

Release from all sinâ€

“The Spirit assists us

With sighs double deep

Interceding with Abba

My soul to keep.â€

THEOLOGICAL MUSINGS

This poem, somewhat like ‘Something Deep Inside’ is an attempt to express the search for the ever illusive inner or true self. Beyond all the facades, charades, and personas, there is a real self, created in the image of God. The Greek philosophers of course urged ‘Know Thyself’, but from a Christian point of view this is a difficult task, not least because sin and self-centeredness impede the search. Occasionally one gets a glimpse of the inner self, but it is fleeting, like the sound of a train going by, or the glimpse of the back of someone as they run by in haste. One of the things I am suggesting in this poem is that the Holy Spirit who dwells within knows us better than we know ourselves, and not only can illuminate us on this and other subjects, but also can articulate for us what is really down deep inside, what our real heart’s cry is.

I am also suggesting in this poem that there is an art or craft to getting to know one’s self, and that beyond progressive sanctification and illumination by the Spirit there is also the need for us to hone our craft, be intentional about the odyssey of self discovery, not as if we should be like Narcissus staring into the pool at our own reflection, but rather seeking out the particular shape the image of God takes in us.

C.S. Lewis in his last, and some would say greatest literary work Until We Have Faces explores in depth what it means to become a whole self, and so to know one’s self without posturing or personas. He intimates it is a painful journey to take off the masks and see ourselves as we really are. And since we are complex beings we may well ask, which self. Is it the public or the private self? Is the best self actually the real self, or only a pretender? And since personality grows and develops, at least in its self-expression we may well realize that we are talking about a moving target here. Indeed the New Testament suggests this very thing. In texts like Romans 8.28-30 or 2 Cor. 3-4 it suggests we are gradually being transformed and conformed to the image of God’s Son, a process that will not be completed until we reach the eschaton and we get our resurrection bodies. Until then, we are always a work in progress. Notice that according to Rev. 6 this is even true in heaven. The saints under the altar are cranky, crying out--- How long? They are given robes and the implication is they need to hush and be patient. As Lewis would put it, we do not fully have faces until we face Christ in person. Short of that we need to regularly take stock, to face ourselves, realizing we see in a glass darkly at this juncture.

Spiritual Meditations:

“The Sound of the Soulâ€

Thoughts for Further Reflection:

“[T]he Holy Spirit who dwells within knows us better than we know ourselves, and not only can illuminate us on this and other subjects, but also can articulate for us what is really down deep inside, what our real heart’s cry is.†Ben Witherington III

“We are dead without Him. He must give us life. If we are trying to please Him with our own hard work and good intentions, we will fail. God is pleased and we are saved only when we let Him do the work inside of us.†Dennis Kinlaw

“We have the choice of two identities: the external mask which seems to be real and which lives by a shadowy autonomy for the brief moment of earthly existence, and the hidden, inner person who seems to us to be nothing, but who can give himself eternally to the truth in whom he subsists. It is this inner self that is taken up into the mystery of Christ, by His love, by the Holy Spirit, so that in secret we live ‘in Christ.’â€

Thomas Merton

Personal Ponderings on “The Sound of the Soulâ€:

No modern writer has wrestled more honestly, openly, and beautifully about the interior life that the late Trappist monk, Thomas Merton. A modern day mystic, Merton’s brief life was a contemplative one. The whole of his life was a quest for peace within himself and throughout the world.

In New Seeds of Contemplation, Merton speaks of the necessity of silence, solitude, and prayer. He purports that it is only in these practices that we discover our true selves. This meant life as a monk for Merton, but he believes that the discovery of self through the contemplative is not only possible for others, but also vital for abundant life in the here and now. Merton writes,

“Our discovery of God is, in a way, God’s discovery of us. We cannot go to heaven to find Him because we have no way of knowing where heaven is or what it is. He comes down from heaven and finds us. He looks at us from the depth of His own infinite actuality, which is everywhere, and His seeing us gives us a new being and a new mind in which we also discover Him. We only know Him in so far as we are known by Him, and our contemplation of Him is a participation in His contemplation of Himself. We become contemplatives when God discovers Himself in us.â€

This journey to discovering what Merton calls the “true inner self†can only be reached when we dig deep within, listening for the voice of God within. It is an awakening of sorts, but one we cannot attain on our own. We only discover God when we lose ourselves and allow God to find us.[1]

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR NEIGHBOR IS IN ARREARS ON HIS RENT



A SOUND INVESTMENT



WHOSE THAT CLOWN THAT ORDERED THE CHARBROILED BURGER?


WHAT TIRED LOOKS LIKE

A BARE WALL





THE REASON SMART PEOPLE WEAR P.J.'S TO BED

AN HAIR-RAISING TATTOO

THE BARE FACTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING


IS THIS THE LINE DRINKERS ARE SUPPOSED TO STOP AT?

WORK IN PROGRESS?

IS THIS HOW ONE BECOMES A CHAIRED PROFESSOR?



THIS IS WHAT SORRY LOOKS LIKE

THIS IS WHAT SAD LOOKS LIKE

Kudos to Sister Mel for these pictures.

In this post I am not interested in discussing the issue of whether Sunday is the sabbath or should be considered the Christian sabbath or not. My interest is the historical one--- did early Christians regularly meet on a fixed day of the week, and was that day Sunday? We have seen in the immediately previous post, that Pliny noticed that Christians did indeed meet on specific or set day of the week, at least in the region where he was governor. But is there other evidence besides the allusion to the Lord's Day in Revelation 1, or the reference in 1 Cor 16? Well yes there is, and it is probably first century evidence as well. Here below you will find the discussion in the Didache on this very matter. The first day of the week was called the Lord's Day, because of course it was the day Jesus rose from the dead. It was not picked because it was called Sunday or the day of Apollo. It had to do with the Jewish calendar not the Julian one, and more specifically it had to do with when after dying on Passover Eve Jesus thereafter rose from the dead.

Here is the quote from the Didache--

14:1 And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled;
14:3 for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord;
14:4 "In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice;
14:5 for I am a great king, saith the Lord and My name is wonderful among the nations."

15:1 Appoint for yourselves therefore overseers and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved;
15:2 for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers.

The translation here is by that other Durhamite, J.B. Lightfoot. Several points call for comment. Firstly, in this text there is a definite reference to the Christian meeting being on Sunday, and the activities listed involve sharing in the Lord's Supper and confessing sins, as James instructed. Notice that the word sacrifice is applied here to the meal which is spoken of as involving breaking bread and giving thanks. What makes especially clear that the reference is to the Lord's Supper, is that it entails a sacrifice "spoken of by the Lord".

The very next section of the Didache refers to the congregation appointing for themselves both overseers and deacons who perform for you the service of prophets and teachers. The reference here is clearly enough to specific persons who are appointed to specific roles, and what is interesting is that the 'speech' roles are assigned to overseers/bishops and deacons who are to be the congregation's prophets and teachers.

One of the more disturbing problems with the sort of arguments found in 'Pagan Christianity' is the lack of understanding of early Christian history, and the relationship of continuity between earliest Christian communities and the communities one finds at the turn of the NT era and at the beginning of the second century when there was still much Jewish Christian influence and character in these communities. Those who want to actually study the influence of the synagogue on early Christian meetings in homes for worship and fellowship should carefully work through James Burtchaell's important monograph From Synagogue to Church. Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge U. Press, 1992). When one examines a text like the Didache, which comes either from late first or early second century Jewish Christian contexts, what is so very interesting about this text, is not only its Jewishness and its use of the Gospel of Matthew's form of Jesus' teaching, but its highly developed sacramental theology of both baptism and the Lord's Supper, a sacramentalism that has nothing to do with pagan rituals, ceremonies or theologies at all.

Here for example is translation of Ivan Lewis of Didache Chapter 10 which comments on the prayer said after the Eucharist, If you read Didache 9 first you will see that clearly the context is a discussion about the Lord's Supper.

CHAPTER 10
PRAYER AFTER COMMUNION
1) After the meal, give thanks in this manner:
2) We offer thanks, Holy Father,
For Your Holy Name which fills our hearts,
And for the knowledge, faith and eternal life,
You made known to us through Your Servant;
Yours is the glory forever.
3) Almighty Master, You created all things for Your own purpose;
You gave men food and drink to enjoy,
That they might give You thanks;
But to us You freely give spiritual food and drink,
And eternal life through Your Servant.
4) Foremost, we thank You because You are mighty;
Yours is the glory forever.
5) Remember Your Body of Servants,
To deliver it from everything evil
And perfect it according to Your love,
And gather it from the four winds,
Sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it;
For the power and glory are Yours forever.
6) Let Your grace come,
And let this world pass away.
Hosanna to the God of David!
May all who are holy, come;
Let those who are not, repent.
Maranatha. Amen.
7)But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving/Eucharist as they wish.

------------------
Notice please the reference to the communion providing spiritual food and drink unto everlasting life. The Greek is even clearer than the English.

And just for the sake of comparison let us consider a text from an outsider--- Pliny the Roman Governor of Bithynia in A.D. 112-113. Here is what he had observed about early Christian meetings. Pliny has been busy trying to get Christians to worship the image of the Emperor, which most are very unwilling to do. When he inquired of them what their worship practices were, here is the answer he received:

"However, they [the Christians he interviewed from Bithynia] assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were of the habit, on a certain fixed day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by an oath, not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition. "

Several things are of note about this revealing passage: 1) the context suggests that the meeting at dawn was on the same exact day each week; 2) it was a morning meeting; 3) the singing of a hymn to Christ as a god was most certainly seen as part of an act of worship, which Pliny countered by trying to get them to worship the image of the Emperor; 4) there would be ethical exhortation and promises made of virtuous behavior; 5) notice the part in italics above about how after the worship time they would depart and meet again to share a common meal. It is this latter part that is said to have been abandoned upon the edict of Pliny because it was an indoor meeting that suggested something of a conventicle or secret society was being set up; 6) note the reference to deaconesses involve presumably in both the worship of the set day and the common meal at different local. Perhaps they were tasked with the serving of the meal, since diakonia in its root meaning is 'to wait on tables'.

Now it is precisely this sort of early evidence that needs to be used to help provide context for the proper reading of the NT evidence about meetings in homes and their character and praxis. When one does this, it is interesting to see that in the latter text the common meal is separated from the worship at sunrise, and the former is what is seen as more pernicious or threatening to the Empire.

Here is the way to start your week off with a bang-- a funky birthday card from Joe Cocker. Be prepared to laugh. I just knew he wasn't singing the Beatles' lyrics! BW3

Kudos to Craig Hill for sending me this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4_MsrsKzMM

There are a variety of important 'biographies' of Jesus written by a variety of scholars, but few of them are Jewish scholars who spent their academic life on the issue of Jesus. David Flusser is the exception to the rule, and we may be grateful his mature thoughts were put together in book form by one of his studies, and brought forth by Eerdmans now. What follows is a detailed summary or precise of the 166 page book, which is well worth the read. The real importance of the book from my vantage point is that we have a Jewish scholar saying that the historical Jesus' self understanding was messianic in various senses. What follows is the detailed summary with a few critical comments by me. See what you think. BW3

The Sage from Galilee. Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, by David Flusser and R. Steven Notley. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007, pp. xix +191, illus. $20 (paper).

When David Flusser first published a book on the historical Jesus, in German in 1968 it is fair to say that he could not have imagined where this effort on his part would lead. Besides the fact that he was one of the first Jewish scholars in the modern era to attempt such a book written with both cognizance of the scholarly discussion and with critical acumen, he surely did not expect that he would in due course receive such a warm response from a variety of audiences, including even conservative Christian ones, albeit the response was slow in coming, and the work did not fully receive the attention it deserved.

When the book appeared however in English in 1969, the translation was marred by various infelicities and errors, which contributed to its neglect, and in truth it was largely overlooked or ignored. What we have in The Sage from Galilee. Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius is not merely a better English translation of the original work, but rather a thorough revision and improvement of it, reflecting the development and culmination of Flusser’s thinking on the subject before his death in 2000, which is why Eerdmans rightly decided to publish the book under a different title than the original one. Readers familiar with the original German edition of the work will recognize that R. Steven Notley has done us a good service in incorporating some of the supplemental studies material into the existing twelve chapters so that it all reads smoothly now.

If we ask the question, What did David Flusser bring to the study of the historical Jesus that many others could and did not? the answer is severalfold. Firstly his breadth and depth of knowledge of early Judaism and its sources was vast. He was that rare scholar who had a profound grasp of the requisite languages, culture, physical setting, archaeology, as well as the literary sources. Secondly, he had a keen interest in Jesus, and in the intellectual pursuit of the understanding of him as a crucial historical figure. Thirdly, and most importantly as Notley so aptly puts it “Flusser felt no need to deny Jesus his high self-awareness. In his understanding, the historical Jesus was both identified with his people and the cornerstone of the faith of the early Christian community.†(p. xi). Flusser had that rare gift of allowing a person their distinctiveness, not attempting to explain it by explaining it away, while still being able to show how what had come before him had in various ways prepared for and influenced a figure like Jesus. For example, Flusser highlights and stresses the love ethic of Jesus, in particular its command to love one’s enemies, without suggesting that Jesus had any desire to start a new world religion. For Flusser it was axiomatic that Jesus not only was a Jew but wanted to remain within the Jewish faith. At the same time he was insistent on saying “I personally identify myself with Jesus’s Jewish worldview, both moral and political, and I believe that the content of his teachings and the approach he embraced have always had the potential to change our world and prevent the greatest part of evil and suffering.†(p. xviii).

What his students like Notley also tell us is that Flusser to his very last days felt he was still learning, and still needed to modify his views in the light of new evidence. He modeled the virtue of a commitment to life long learning coupled with a commitment to revise one’s views as time went on as the evidence required it. Furthermore, he passionately believed that Jesus had something to say to our current world situation and human dilemmas. Indeed he believed that Jesus’ life and teaching should influence how we conduct our lives today. This is one of the reason so many Christian students wanted to go to Hebrew University and study with Flusser. He was most assuredly Israel’s foremost scholar on Jesus and early Christianity, and his whole-hearted commitment to a historical and philological approach to the subject matter is refreshing when so often today we have scholars who thing ‘all we have are texts’. Flusser gave the lie to that assertion again and again.

In his chapter on methodology and sources, Flusser stakes out his territory clearly. In his view “the most genuine sources concerning a charismatic personality are his utterances and the accounts of the faithful—read critically of course….An impartial reading of the Synoptic Gospels results in a picture not so much of a redeemer of mankind, but of a Jewish miracle worker and preacher.†(p. 2). He is convinced that the Synoptic Gospels do a better job of presenting us with the historical Jesus, whereas John presents us with a post-Easter Christological portrait. In other words, he does not see the Synoptic accounts as samples of early Christian kerygma, the preaching about Jesus. Flusser’s analysis of the Synoptic Gospels however did not lead him to embrace the theory of Markan priority, rather he wanted to suggest that “the Synoptic Gospels are based upon one or more non-extant early documents composed by Jesus’ disciples and the early church in Jerusalem.These texts were originally written in Hebrew. Subsequently they were translated into Greek and passed through various stages of redaction. It is the Greek translation of these early Hebrew sources that were employed by our three Evangelists….Luke preserves, in comparison with Mark (and Matthew when depending on Mark) the more primitive tradition†(pp. 3-4). Few scholars would follow Flusser in this conclusion of Lukan priority though certainly Q scholars tend to prefer the Lukan version of Q over the Matthean one, and recently there has been a detailed study by Maurice Casey showing the Aramaic Vorlage of a good deal of the Gospel of Mark (see his Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel). But this is not all. Flusser also believed that Matthew, when independent of Mark, frequently preserves the earlier sources of the life of Jesus that lie behind Luke’s account. Mark is said to have reworked the material and unfavorably influenced Matthew. So much is this the view of Flusser that he concludes that Mark, presents us with a Jesus who is a supernatural, lonely holy man and wonder worker who is unique, and universally misunderstood even by his disciples. Flusser believes that the cry of dereliction from the cross which encapsulates this portrait is a Markan creation.

The net result of this view was to build a Lukan plus Matthean image of Jesus, whilst not agreeing that Mark presents us with the earliest glimpse of Jesus and the more primitive tradition. One more thing—Flusser did his own translations from what he believed was the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Greek of Jesus’ sayings in the Synoptics. But that assumes Jesus spoke Hebrew instead of Aramaic, which is surely wrong. It is not a surprise that many simply viewed Flusser as eclectic and even eccentric when it came to methodology.

At times Flusser sounds rather like more conventional but radical critics of the Gospel tradition. He argues for example that the birth narratives are not reliable, for Jesus was probably born in Nazareth in Galilee, and his Davidic descent must remain doubtful, despite the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Further, Flusser thinks Jesus had about a one year ministry following his baptism by John in either 27/28 A.D. or 28/29 which was followed by his death by crucifixion in A.D. 30. Flusser doubts that John had any intentions of being a historian, and so discards the possibility suggested in the 4^th Gospel that Jesus’ ministry involved several years. He appears to think Jesus was the eldest of some seven children, probably all Mary’s children, though they might be cousins. He also tends to think that Lk. 2.41-51 provides us with a historical anecdote about Jesus the young man, and this is of a piece with his general tendency to think Luke presents the most historical account, rather than the later more Hellenized one for a largely Gentile audience. Flusser has a tendency to see Jesus as rather well educated both in Torah and in the oral traditions, something of a budding Talmudist, who had a Jewish education “incomparably superior to that of St. Paul†(p.12). Flusser accepts the authenticity of the claim of Josephus that Jesus was a sage, and was seen as such in his own day, and he rejects the views of J.D. Crossan and others that Jesus was a simple peasant. In this respect, one is of course reminded of the work of Geza Vermes, who follows a similar line of approach on this matter. Flusser takes this line because he finds in the sayings of Jesus evidence of learning, if not being learned, and he thinks Jesus really was called ‘rabbi’, a term which in his view referred to scholars and teachers. Interestingly, Flusser thinks that the reason Jesus’ own disciples did not call him rabbi, is because Jesus preferred the term ‘lord’, an indication not of deity but of Jesus’ high self-awareness (pp. 13-14). Flusser says that against the opinion of some, the historical evidence suggests that carpenters were considered particularly learned. He opposes the bucolic notion that Jesus was a naïve simple manual worker.

He also affirms the notion that there was a real tension between Jesus’ relationship with his physical family and his understanding of his divine calling (p. 14), but he thinks Mark goes too far in suggesting Jesus rejected his family (p. 15). Rather Jesus’ family did not affirm or believe in Jesus’ mission during his life and were not his followers, and so when he left Nazareth, he never returned, except perhaps once, and that resulted in his being rejected by the town folks. He adds that Jesus’ saying about hating one’s parents (Lk. 14.26) in fact in the Hebrew original simply refers to preference, as does the ‘Jacob I loved but Esau I hated’ saying. It were better translated I preferred Jacob to Esau. Comparison was conveyed by the language of dramatic contrast in Hebrew.

Flusser, like various others, thinks that John the Baptist may have belonged to one of the Essene communities (p. 18). This in turn leads to his viewing John’s Baptism as operating on the same assumptions as Essene baptism, namely that the sinner first had to repent for “water can cleanse the body only if the soul has first been purified through righteousness. The water ritual only provided ritual bodily purity. The real cleansing came through repentance and the work of the Spirit of holiness which preceded the water ritual. Flusser thinks Josephus has it right when he says that John insisted that one had to practice justice towards one’s fellow humans and piety towards God as a preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God (Ant. 18.117). One of the more interesting facets of Flusser’s analysis of the baptism of Jesus is that he thinks that the voice Jesus heard actually was quoting Is. 42.11 “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit on him…†Here he follows J. Jeremias and others who find in Lk. 3.21/Mt. 3.17 “in whom I am well pleased†an allusion to Is. 42.11. Flusser believes that early Jews often had ecstatic experiences in which they heard words of Scripture (pp. 21-22). Flusser believes that Jesus’ ministry began after his baptism by John, not after John was arrested. The latter idea in Mk. 1.14 he attributes to the Evangelist’s desire to make clear that John was the literal forerunner of Jesus in salvation history (p.25), but he finds a more reliable tradition in John 3.24. What is interesting about this is that while generally discrediting John as a historical source, he draws on John when it suits his own theories about what must have happened.

One of the most interesting aspects of Flusser’s historical reconstruction is his conviction that the Son of Man material holds not only a key to Jesus’ self-understanding but also John’s understanding of Jesus. Thus when John is in prison and sends two messengers to ask Jesus “Are you the One who is to Come†Flusser sees in this an allusion to the coming Son of Man in Dan. 7.13-14. The difference however is that the Baptist’s eschatology was that the Son of Man would come for judgment imminently, whereas Jesus did not see that coming on the clouds and final judgment as imminent. (pp. 26-28). For Flusser the parable of the wheat and tares provides the clue as to Jesus’ view of where things were in the eschatological time line. Now was the time for healings and Good News, not the time for final judgment. And so “Jesus’ doubts about the Baptist were justified, John never accepted Jesus’ claim.†(p. 28). In Jesus’ view healings and exorcisms implicitly demonstrated who he was and that God’s saving righteousness was breaking into human history. Jesus saw himself as the servant who was fulfilling Is. 61.1-2, as is shown not only from Lk. 7.18-23 and para. but also Lk. 4.17-18. Jesus saw John as the Elijah figure, the fiery prophet who came preparing the way of God at time’s end. In other words, with John the endtimes begin, but he is not the messiah. Elijah is the one who opens up the breach which allows the messiah and his followers to come through and possess the kingdom, or put another way Elijah is the one who opens up the breach so the Kingdom may break in. This is based on the suggestion that Jesus’ enigmatic saying about taking the kingdom by force is grounded in Micah 2.13, which in turn suggests that Jesus saw himself as the King coming through the breach that John had made, making way for the Kingdom to come (p.31). Flusser, in comparing and contrasting Jesus and John (the former clearly did not see himself as a messianic figure but looked for another, the latter did seem himself in that light) makes the interesting observation that “each man’s preaching was closely linked with his character. The good news of love was related to Jesus’ Socratic nature; penitential preaching was related to John’s somber inclination toward asceticism.†(p. 33).

One of the major axioms on which Flusser stakes all is that Jesus was a law observant Jew, and that any evidence to the contrary must be the redactional work of the Evangelists or others, with the possible exception of the episode of the Jesus’ disciples plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath (p. 35). The obligatory hand-washing before meals debacle is seen as a debatable issue in Jesus’ day. Remarkably, Flusser thinks Jesus actually did say Mt. 15.11 about what enters a person not defiling them. He asserts “a person’s body does not become ritually impure even when one has eaten animals forbidden by the Law of Moses!†(p. 37). But surely this was not the view of most early Jews, as is shown by the Peter episode in Acts 10. Unclean food, if touched or eaten did indeed defile a person, according to Jewish Law as well as Pharisaic tradition. In other words, Flusser denies that the parenthetical remark in Mk. 7.19 is the correct exegesis of what Jesus said and did, while admitting Jesus said it. He does however think that Jesus’ beef with the Pharisees was that they often exalted ritual purity over moral principle, whereas for Jesus moral values always trumped ritual values (p. 38). In addition, Flusser argues that healing on the Sabbath by word of mouth was always allowed, so Jesus did not violate the Sabbath by that means. This of course would not explain a story like John 9, where Jesus makes little mud pies to place over the man’s eyes. About that story Flusser admits “If Jesus had acted thus, the objection of the Pharisees would have been legitimate†(p. 39). Flusser is quite sensitive to the issue of the Pharisees, and on various occasions argues that the Pharisees are later inserted into the text by the Evangelists or others, but that the bigots Jesus confronted on occasion were usually someone else. So keen is he to defend the Pharisees that he says things like “Fundamentally, the Pharisaic philosophy of life was in line with non-sectarian universal Judaism, while the Sadducees turned into a counter-revolutionary group that denied the validity of the oral tradition and saw belief in a future life as an old wive’s tale. The Pharisess were not identical with with the later rabbis, but the two groups may, in practice be regarded as forming a unity.†(p. 44 emphasis added). It would be much nearer to the mark to say the Sadducees represented the older Hebrew view and values as enshrined in the OT itself, and the Pharisees were in fact the sectarian group that added all sorts of oral traditions into the mix and often expected them to be treated as if they had the force of law. They were also those who affirmed the later Jewish views about the afterlife including resurrection, not the more primitive Hebrew beliefs about Sheol. Furthermore, Flusser here seems almost completely unaware of the work of J. Neusner and others who warns repeatedly and rightly that we cannot simply assume or say that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were like the later Pharisaic tradition, much less like the later rabbinic tradition. We cannot assert there was this sort of unity. And when that is assumed it leads to all sorts of anachronism, the reading back into the pre-70 period of all sorts of traditions and ideas found in the Talmuds and Mishnah, many of which it is doubtful were extant in Jesus’ day. As Flusser has to admit however, there were many persons as critical of the Pharisees as the criticism credited to Jesus, including the Essenes (CD 8.12; 19.25;1 QH 4.6-8). Knowing this, he then distinguished between the true Pharisees and the hypocritical ones who place form over substance.

Knowing that “it would be wrong to describe Jesus as a Pharisee in the broad sense…†Flusser nonetheless recognizes a serious tension between them, but it was a “tension which never implied negation, nor were the views of Jesus and the Pharisees contrary or ever degenerated into enmity†(p. 47). Were this correct it would be exceedingly difficult to explain how Saul as a Pharisee saw it as his mission to persecute the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus. It would be nearer the mark to say there were serious differences between the holiness movement Jesus led, and that of the Pharisees, and that they often clashed on issue of practice, but not over the doctrine of resurrection. Presumably also they clashed with Jesus and his disciples over the role of Jesus himself in Judaism as well, and Saul of Tarsus is just one piece of proof of that hypothesis. Here it would appear Marcus Borg’s older study on early Jewish holiness movements is nearer the mark. But it is right to say that some Pharisees must have thought highly of Jesus, and it is possible to take Nicodemus, and perhaps also Joseph of Arimathea amongst them. Flusser makes much of the basic silence about Pharisaic involvement in the trial of Jesus, but there surely must have been some Pharisees on the Sanhedrin council, even though they did not precipitate the outcome of that hearing, Caiaphas did. It is simply not possible, based on the historical evidence we have to say confidently as Flusser does that “the Pharisees regarded the handing over of Jesus to the Romans as a repulsive act of sacerdotal despotism….We can assume also that Pharisees do not figure as accusers of Jesus at his trial…because at that time people knew that the Pharisees had not agreed to hand Jesus over to the Romans†(p. 49). In a true argument from silence, Flusser thus concludes that anti-Pharisaic bias caused the Gospel writers to leave out the important point that Pharisees protested the handing of Jesus over to the Romans. Thus, Flusser does not come to grips with the considerable evidence of animus between Jesus and at least some Pharisees and their scribes. Not surprisingly, Flusser also minimizes the impact of the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount, even resorting to rhetoric to explain it away. Pointing to the ‘not one jot or tittle’ saying to prove Jesus did not oppose any of the Mosaic Law he adds “It would be absurd to believe that after such statements Jesus intended to say there was a contrast between his teaching and the Mosaic Law.†(p. 49 n. 43). But the jot and tittle saying is about the eschatological fulfillment of the Law, after which it is obsolete, not about obedience to all the Mosaic Law, a very different matter. He is right however that some of Jesus’ more radical teachings such as loving enemies, have some precedent in the teachings of other early Jewish sages. Flusser also concludes that Jesus had a rather low opinion of non-Jews, and only seldom helped them. Doubtless he is correct that Jesus saw it as his mission to work with his fellow Jews within the context of eretz Israel. (cf. Mt. 10.5-7; Rom. 15.8).

Flusser shows without great difficulty that there had been considerable reflection on the OT love commandments before and during the time of Jesus. Jesus was not unique in this. Flusser does thing that there were some distinctive and even revolutionary aspects about Jesus’ teaching—“the radical interpretation of the commandment of mutual love [i.e. its inclusion of the enemy within the scope of ‘neighbor’], the call for a new morality, and the idea of the kingdom of heaven†(p. 55). Flusser shows that the focus on reward for good behavior and punishment for wicked behavior grew out of the Hebrew insistence on justice, and believing in a God of justice, but before the time of Jesus there had been a development in Jewish morality such that doing good without concern for or expecting reward had been seen as a higher form of morality. It has also been recognized that one could not simply divide the world into the righteous and the wicked, since there was good and evil in the hearts of all. This in turn leads to the realization that God is being merciful to all, and so we too should be merciful as God is merciful (Lk.6.36). Flusser translates the ‘be ye perfect†command to mean let there be no limit to your goodness, as there is none to God’s. Jesus then emphasizes that God reaches out in love to all persons. Strangely then Flusser turns around and asks, but did Jesus include Gentiles in the command to love one’s neighbor (p. 60 n. 16). This is especially strange in light of a parable like the parable of the Good Samaritan. Flusser can show that Jesus and Hillel agreed that the Golden rule could be seen as a summary of the Mosaic Law. In addition the phrase ‘as your self’ as in ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ could be understood to mean ‘love your neighbor because he is like yourself’. Don’t do to him something you would not do and would not want done to yourself. If we look for evidence of the double love commandment, linking the two, outside of the teaching of Jesus Flusser is able to point (p. 62) to several pieces of evidence (Jub. 36.1-24; Did. 1.2; T. Dan. 5.3; T. Iss. 5.2;7.6). The usual caricature of a loveless religion of early Judaism contrasted with the love ethic of Jesus, simply doesn’t do justice to the former, but Flusser is right that Jesus pushed things to the limit in requiring love of enemy. And also, Jesus is not unique in dealing with the root of the problem in the human heart, but his emphasis on internalized sin, or the sins of the heart again pushes the scope of sin and scope of the imperatives to knew heights. In the end Flusser sees Jesus as following in the footsteps of Hillel who preached love, and pushing the envelope further by insisting on unconditional love, even of enemies and sinners (p. 65).

Did Jesus have a radical social ethic? Flusser sets about answering this question by comparing and contrasting the ethic of Jesus with the ethic of the Essenes. Like the latter group Jesus “regarded all possessions as a threat to true piety (Mt. 6.24)†(p. 68). Jesus is said not to embrace the radical dualistic theology of the Essenes (which separated the sons of light from the sons of darkness), but he did embrace certain aspects of their social ethic or philosophy of life, for example the view that possessions are an obstacle to virtue (Mk. 10.24-25). “For both the Essenes and Jesus poverty, humility, purity, and unsophisticated simplicity of heart were the essential religious virtues. Jesus and the Essenes thought that in the very near divine future, the social outcasts and oppressed would become the preferred ‘for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’†(p. 69). Flusser is able to closely connect Jesus’ beatitudes with the Essene teaching— the Essene preacher is destined “to proclaim to the meek the multitude of thine mercies and to let them that are of contrite spirit hear salvation from his everlasting source, and to them that mourn, everlasting joy†(1 QHa 18.14-15) (p. 69). The poor in spirit turn out to be the actual pious poor to whom God has given the Holy Spirit. Flusser also finds plausible similarities of theme between Jesus’ beatitudes and the Testament of Judah 25.3-5, but he thinks the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs comes from the fringes of the Essene community anyway. In the end, Flusser sees the relationship of Jesus with the Essene ethic as follows “Jesus was familiar with the ideas current in these circles, and incorporated them into his transvaluation of all valuesâ€. (p. 71). This is a plausible view. Flusser also thinks that the ‘overcome evil with good’ idea goes back to the Essenes as well(1QS 10.17-20), from whom Jesus, and then Christianity adopted and adapted it in various ways. But actually we also find this same notion in Test. Ben. 4-6, as Flusser acknowledges. Flusser also argues that Jesus’ pacifism, or ethic of non-resistance to evil, and turning the other cheek comes from the Essene teachings or the Testament of the Twelve Partriarchs.

Flusser finds in a parable like that of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20.1-16) evidence of Jesus’ break with the old morality of recompense only for services rendered. Blessing does not distinguish between the one who has done little and the one who has done much, just as misfortune does not distinguish between the sinner and the just person. The fallen world is a morally complex place. (p. 75). Flusser says that Jesus did indeed see calamity on the near horizon coming on Jerusalem, but it could have been avoided if Jerusalem had chosen the route of repentance and peace. “Jesus’ concept of the righteousness of God therefore is incommensurable with reason. Man cannot measure it, but he can grasp it. It leads to the preaching of the kingdom in which the last will be first and the first last. It leads also from the Sermon on the Mount to Golgotha, where the just man dies a criminal’s death. It is at once profoundly moral, and yet beyond good and evil. In this paradoxical scheme, all the ‘important’ customary virtues, and the well-knit personality, worldly dignity, and the proud insistence upon the formal fulfillment of the law, are fragmentary and empty. Socrates questioned the intellectual side of man. Jesus questioned the moral. Both were executed. Can this be mere chance?†(p. 75).

Flusser sees Jesus as supporting neither revolt nor the Romans in his famous render unto Caesar pronouncement. These are Caesar’s coins, it’s his money, give it back to him. You can’t serve two masters (p. 76). In discussing Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God Flusser makes clear Jesus was no Zealot, but then he concludes “Because there are clear similarities between the rabbinic idea of the kingdom and that of Jesus, we may assume that Jesus embraced and developed their idea†(p. 77). No, we may certainly not assume that, for the rabbinic sources are too late to have influenced Jesus, and we do not know what bits of them, what ideas in them may go back to Jesus’ day. Unless a saying is quite clearly and plausibly linked to a very early Jewish teacher from before or during Jesus’ era, we can make no such assumptions.

Flusser, somewhat surprisingly buys the older idea from German scholarship that Jesus kept the concept of the kingdom of God and of the messianic Son of Man quite clearly separate in his mind (p. 79). This is false, as Jesus’ use of Dan. 7.13ff. shows where we find both ideas together in one OT passage. But there is force in the argument that it is not Jesus’ eschatological expectations which determine Jesus’ view of God and human beings, but rather the reverse.

Flusser goes on to stress that Jesus and the rabbis agree that the kingdom is both present and future, but with differing perspectives. For the rabbis the kingdom had always been an unchanging reality (God’s reign), but for Jesus God’s kingdom was breaking into history at a specific point in time. (Mt. 11.12). In Jesus’ view there are already individuals in the Kingdom. “This then is the realized eschatology of Jesus. He is the only Jew of ancient times known to us who preached not only that people were on the threshold of the end time, but that the new age of salvation had already begun†(p. 80). This of course is not quite true—various of Jesus’ followers such as Paul and Peter did as well. The Kingdom of God was present and growing amongst the people like a grain of mustard seed, or like yeast in dough. Thus kingdom becomes a cipher not just for God’s eschatological rule on the earth but a divinely willed movement that spreads among the people on the earth. Herein lies the subversive and revolutionary character of Jesus’ ethic (p. 81). When one enters that realm, that community, one finds one’s inheritance.

In an interesting insight, Flusser suggests (p. 82) that the reason for Jesus’ ethic of non-resistance is in part a result of his eschatological conviction as follows: “Since Satan and his powers will be overthrown and the present world-order shattered, it is to be regarded with almost indifference, and ought not to be strengthened by opposition. Therefore, one should not resist evildoers; one should love one’s enemy and not provoke the Roman empire to attack. For when the kingdom of God appears, all this will vanish.†Jesus according to Flusser is more shaped by the world view of Jewish sages, John the Baptist more by the Essene worldview, but you would not know this from Flusser’s arguments in the chapter on ethics and the kingdom thus far. However an important point comes to light on p. 83. The designation Son of Man does not occur in the Essene literature anywhere, not even in connection with Dan. 7.13-14. Flusser thinks however that John the Baptist expected that eschatological figure of Dan. 7 to show up imminently and judge the world ala Mt. 25.31-46.

Flusser thinks there was a fundamental disconnect between Jesus and John—“Jesus’ doubts about John [‘blessed are those who find no offense in me’] were justified. John never accepted Jesus’ claim because of his different eschatological timetable†(p. 84). Jesus sees John not only as a sort of Elijah figure. Flusser thinks that Jesus connected John with the Deut. 34.10 prophecy ‘no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses’ when Jesus says ‘among those born of woman, there has arisen no one like John’ (Mt. 11.11-15). John was a member of the previous generation of the era of the prophets, not a member of the new kingdom of God which had broken into human history. (pp. 84-85). Jesus in other words affirms a tri-partite division of history—the age of the prophets now over, the coming of the kingdom of heaven (now happening) which is a transitional time, and the future eschatological age of final judgment and redemption. John operated with a bipartite structure, with the final judgment imminent. Not Jesus. (p. 85). Jesus’ parable of the weeds is his answer to John’s already now in the harvest and the axe of final judgment is laid to the root of the dead tree. Jesus sees the intermediary period when the Kingdom is dawning as a period when the wicked, the sinners and the righteous will and must live together. According to Flusser, Jesus is the only one to connect this interim period with the coming of God’s kingdom on earth (p. 86). Jesus’ views about the kingdom are again said by Flusser to be based in rabbinic Judaism. But Jesus is unique in identifying the coming of this Kingdom also with the days of the Messiah (p. 87). The concept of the kingdom in rabbinic Judaism was that of course God ruled all de jure now, but in the eschatological future God would rule de facto when the kingdom of God is revealed to all earthlings. The phrase ‘age to come’ was used strictly of the eschatological age involving the final judgment the resurrection of the dead, the new heaven and new earth (see 1 Enoch 71.15; B.T. San. 91b). Jesus was distinctive in thinking that the days of the Messiah and the kingdom breaking in corresponded and were already happening in his day. There was speculation on the length of the messianic period (B.T. San. 99a). Jesus however says that no one knows when the Son of Man is coming and the age to come will begin.

Flusser spends time discussing the parallels to the eschatological schema Jesus that he sees in both the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, 29-30,39-42,72-74 and 4 Ezra 7 and 12.32-36, both of which he dates to the late first century, as he does the book of Revelation. What is especially interesting about 4 Ezra is that it talks about a Son of man figure coming on the clouds (4 Ez. 13), “but in 4 Ezra he becomes a supernatural messianic savior, and therefore his appearance does not form part of an eschatological system. He is not the eschatological judge.†(p. 93 n. 56). What Flusser does not contemplate is the possibility that Jesus may have seen himself as such a supernatural Son of Man savior figure. He does however point out that in both the Gospels and in 4 Ezra the Messiah dies. It appears possible that messiah and Son of man are seen as different figures in 4 Ezra.

How should we view Jesus’ understanding of the relationship of his own ministry and the future coming of the Son of Man for judgment? Flusser puts it this way—“in his eschatological system, the coming of the Son of Man is postponed together with the Last Judgment into a distant future. This change lies at the center of the conflict between the Baptist and Jesus. Moreover, I believe that Jesus came to the conclusion that he himself would be reveled as the divine Son of Man….The identification by Jesus between the messianic age and the kingdom of heaven in which Jesus will have the central task is, by the way, an additional proof that Jesus was sure that he is the Messiah.†(p. 95). The reason that Jesus does not say in so many words in public that he is the messiah, is because he had not yet finished the tasks of the messiah (p. 99 n.15). Most striking is Flusser repudiation of the eschatological analysis of A. Schweitzer and his successors. “Jesus was not wrong when he asserted that before the ‘day of the Son of Man’ the age of the kingdom of heaven will still come. Those who are shown to be wrong are the modern adherents to the ‘acute eschatology’ of John, and not Jesus.†(p. 96). Since the kingdom of heave was identical with the messianic age it became a dynamic force in history breaking into it at the time of the Baptist, and it is not a statement about God’s supramundane ruling of his universe.

Like the work of G. Vermes (whose work came after that of Flusser), Flusser compares Jesus to other early Jewish miracle working holy men like Hanina bin Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer. He accounts for Jesus’ periodic withdrawal to quiet and private places, his use of the term Abba because of his intimate relationship with God, and the use of the ‘Son’ language to his being like these holy men who also in some contexts were called Abba and God’s ‘son’ in some favored or special sense (pp. 97-100). He also parallels Jesus’ relationship with children and that of Hanan who allowed children to have access to him. Flusser rejects the messianic secret notion of Mark as a later construct, but sees the secretive aspect of Jesus’ healings as parallel to the fact that these other holy men also healed in secret, not wanting credit. Flusser argues that the rabbis address God as “our Father†does not have the same weight or significance as Jesus addressing God as ‘my Father’ or as Abba. Here he followers Jeremias. (p. 100 and note 18). Jesus distinguished between his unique sonship and the common fatherhood of God for all believers. Jesus apparently did see his divine sonship as unique and decisive. And so Flusser goes beyond Vermes in saying that Jesus’ sonship went beyond the sort talked of by the Jewish miracle workers. His sonship was a consequence of his election through the heavenly voice at baptism. (p. 101). Flusser accepts the event on the Mount of Transfiguration as historical, and argues that when the voice from heaven said “this is my beloved Son, listen to him†there is a double echo here--- the term beloved is Greek for only, hence an allusion to the Isaac story and thus Jesus’ coming martyrdom is likely, and secondly the phrase ‘listen to him’ echoes Deut. 18.15 which speaks of God raising up a prophet like Moses, after which is said “listen to himâ€. (p. 103). This is one of the real strengths of Flusser’s reading of the Jesus material. His knowledge of the wider corpus of Jewish literature is so vast that he readily finds the echoes and allusions much more easily than some scholars. Of course this can be overdone.

Flusser sees the parable of the wicked vineyard tenants Lk. 20.9-19 and par.) as crucial. It reveals the clash between Jesus and the Saducees, but it also reveals Jesus’ sense of sonship, his predestination as prophetic preacher, and his knowledge of his coming tragic end (p. 103-04). Flusser thinks as well that the parable reveals that though Jesus knew he would be killed, he also believed his cause would be victorious (p. 105). He points out that in Jewish tradition the ‘stone’ of Ps. 118.22 was identified with David, but here Jesus suggests it refers to himself. But Jesus was also here seeing himself in the long line of prophets which Israel had martyred. There was in 2 Macc. 6-7 the notion of martyrdom as atoning sacrifice. But Flusser is not convinced that the Mark 10.45 form of the famous saying is original (cf. Lk. 22.27), and that Jesus spoke of his coming death as in order to expiate the sins of believers. He adds “Nor is it likely that he saw himself as the suffering atoning servant of God described by the prophet Isaiah.†(p. 106). In other words, Jesus did not see himself playing out and carrying out the role of the suffering servant, that was a later church deduction. Jesus, says Flusser, wrestled with death to the very end (p. 106).

Perhaps the most important chapter in Flusser’s book is Chapter 9 on the Son of Man. Flusser thinks that the Caesarea Philippi episode is historical, and that even Mt. 16.18-19 is fundamentally genuine (p. 107 n. 1).

Like Vermes again, Flusser concludes that in the ‘present’ Son of Man sayings, the phrase ‘son of man’ simply means ‘man’ in a generic sense, and has no bearing on nor any information about Jesus’ messianic hopes (p. 109). In regard to the Son of Man passion predictions, Flusser had changed his mind from the first edition of his Jesus book to the final. His later judgment was that Lk. 9.44 and 22.21 were authentic and that Jesus had spoken about his being handed over into the hands of (wicked) men. Here Jesus uses the phrase as euphemistic form of self-reference (p. 111). Flusser adds that Jesus may have had an aspiration to be that Son of Man figured revealed at the end and sent to judge the world.

On p. 111 Flusser reiterates that he is convinced that Jesus spoke and taught in Hebrew, not Aramaic, and that the Semitic language behind the 3 Synoptics is Hebrew. Few scholars today would agree with him. Therefore, though Dan. 7 is in Aramaic, and though Flusser believers Jesus drew on Dan.