Ben Witherington posts a great piece on the fear caused by emails. We get so many warnings, we’re just flat-out afraid to do anything!

So, make sure you read this and send it on to 10 people you love, and then email me back… Oh… never mind. Got carried away!

James Robison of the popular TV show “Life Today” recently posted an article of mine on the homelessness of God. You can read it here. It’s very short.

If you have a blog, feel free to link to it if you find it helpful.

Also, if you are looking to help ReChurch your friends and family, our ReChurch Special continues all this month.

Finally, thousands of people are still reading Jon Zens unforgettable debate with Ben Witherington on the book Pagan Christianity. You can read the debate here (Zens’ includes Witherington’s arguments in his responses). Zens brings a slew of historical and biblical information to the table in this discussion and does some great teaching at the same time.

There’s been some discussion on turning this file into a small printed booklet. If you would find a booklet useful, let us know in the comments section.

George Barna and I still receive questions on this book. But virtually all of them have already been answered on this page. So check it out if you or your friends have questions or objections on the book.

We hope you find it of help.

“A strong sense of assurance provided by the living presence of God in the person of the Holy Spirit in our lives is not the same as intellectual certainty…. I must confess that as a NT [New Testament] scholar I am inherently suspicious about theological systems like Calvinism or Dispensationalism or even Arminianism and the like which seem to foster certain kinds of feelings of intellectual certainty and even smugness about things that are in fact profound mysteries.” — Ben Witherington, here

“While a problem can be solved, a mystery is inexhaustible. A problem can be held at arm’s length; a mystery encompasses us and will not let us keep a safe distance.” — Daniel L. Migliore, in his book Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology; this passage has a footnote that references Gabriel Marcel’s book The Mystery of Being

It all started with the threatened closure of the biblical studies department at Sheffield University – at least the undergraduate programme – with staff offered early redundancies and no fresh faces to replace them. When the students, both religious and secular, found out, they united against the decision, and letters flooded in from around the world, written to the Vice Chancellor, Professor Burnett, supporting the department and asking for reconsideration. As Professor Maurice Casey, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Nottingham, wrote: “I hope you are aware that this would lead to the wreckage of a quite outstanding feature of British education.” He elaborated, “the Department has a fully justified reputation for research excellence throughout the world, because of the exceptional combination of creativity and independence of mind shown by members of staff in their publications and at academic conferences. These qualities enable them to make an outstanding contribution to British education as well. At a time in their lives when students frequently form and change their views of ideology, morals and everything that matters most, and should learn how to do so, this Department’s students are exceptionally free to maintain their views or change them. The staff contribute to this process as they should, by assessing different points of view in an independent manner by means of evidence and argument, with proper awareness also of what we do not know, and they support students regardless of their point of view. England cannot afford to lose a department like this.” Other letters, with similar endorsements made it screamingly obvious that the department had an outstanding international reputation recognised by scholars from all religious and non religious perspectives.

Finally, it appears the upper bureaucratic powers saw the light. The VC shone through and the department has survived. Thank God (apologies to Simon Holloway**). The department had after all, been awarded the top rating (24 pts) in the QAA Teaching Review. However, it appears that at least one international academic didn’t deem the department worthy of support. In fact this academic has had some rather appallingly serious, false accusations against the department, attributed to him in Christianity Today:

Other faculty [at Sheffield] were “bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students’ faith,” according to Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary.

This scandalous allegation is all the more alarming considering the Biblical Studies Department’s “Aims and Objectives” outlined in the 2009-10 undergraduate handbook. These might compare with Asbury Theological Seminary’s “statement of faith”. One of Sheffield’s “aims” is to “develop tolerant, professional, and informed attitudes to a variety of approaches to biblical texts”.

The question was, not whether or not this “New Testament scholar” was aware of the methodological concept of ‘deconstruction’, which he appeared not to be, but did he actually say it? So I asked him – as you do – but as there wasn’t any other forum, I asked him in the comments on one of his blog posts … a post about a book called ‘Three Cups of Tea’. He responded respectfully, saying “This is not the venue for addressing this matter. I’ve had an email exchange with David Clines about this and its been sorted”. Ah, “sorted”. As Jorunn Okland a recent member of the Sheffield staff, and now Professor of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies in the Humanities at the University of Oslo helpfully points out on James Crossley’s blog, “old gentlemen’s agreements at the back room is still what counts!” and she added, “Such agreements clearly are more important than public discussion, clear and transparent arguments, apologies, clarifications and the like. But this is perhaps representative of how things work in evangelical christianity?”. So it would seem. Nevertheless, I was delighted, naturally, but couldn’t help wondering … “We can look forward to a public apology from someone soon then”. Horrified, I received a rather terse dismissal: “I doubt there will be a public apology. There are too many wounded in action to account for. Honestly Stephanie, Sheffield did not act wisely in not hiring folks like Loveday Alexander or Andrew Lincoln once they were gone, as they at least nurtured people in their Christian faith” Wounded in action? I thought it was the wounded in action, the staff and students of the department, who deserved an apology … from someone. Besides, Sheffield had not been allowed to hire anyone new, as the powers that be had deemed it necessary to phase out the department completely. As for “nurturing people in their Christian faith”, Mike Koke correctly observed in a comment on James Crossley’s blog again, that “there are always University chaplains and Christian organizations available to nurture faith”.

I was shocked that there would be no apology and obviously the comments attributed to him in “Christianity Today” would not be withdrawn. He appeared to endorse everything they said and hadn’t tried to deny saying them. Ben reassured me “You shouldn’t be shocked. Do a little historical research. Start with F.F. Bruce and the original purpose and focus of the Biblical Studies Faculty at Sheffield. Then compare that to where we are now.” Astonishing I know, but I do know quite a bit about the history of the department and have known the current department for a little while now. I even like to attend the post graduate seminars there. Ben is also under the impression that he can give us all elementary lectures in history and consistently misreads what is said to him – misreading Dr James Crossley of the Sheffield staff for over four years now – and giving us all a little summary of Ralph Martin’s career, someone who retired from the department in 1996 and hasn’t had anything to do with it since! I think Ben assumes that universities should function in the same way ideologically as they did at their conception.

When I suggested he might not know what good critical historical scholarship was, he flew at me, accusing me of not having read his academic work. I corrected him – I have read some of his work. Indeed, I am fully aware of his theories on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud, the authenticity of the James Ossuary, and the theory that the assumed ‘beloved disciple’, whom the New Testament NEVER actually describes as “the beloved disciple”, let alone identifies, being Lazarus. I often wonder if, should he realise that any of these theories were wrong, he would ever concede his error? He has after all, made quite a success of himself with these sensational ideas. Indeed, I know quite a little bit about Ben. I also reminded him that it is “CRITICAL” historical scholarship of which I think he might have no understanding.

Critical historical scholarship … Asbury Theological Seminary, Ben’s employer, is a very conservative institution which is “called to prepare theologically educated, sanctified, Spirit-filled men and women to evangelize and to spread scriptural holiness throughout the world through the love of Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit and to the glory of God the Father”. It also endorses the inerrancy of Scripture, whatever that is. Ben at least, only pays lip service to academic freedom. In the Sheffield Biblical Studies departmental handbook, the objectives include having students to “have acquired abroad understanding of Biblical Studies and the variety of approaches used to study the Bible”, to “have acquired detailed knowledge of individual biblical books”, to “have had the opportunity to take modules introducing them to some of the major scholarly issues in the study of the Bible and its understanding in the modern world”, to “be able to relate the Bible to broader cultural and intellectual contexts” and to “be able to assess critically scholarly argument about the Bible and be able to offer informed and reasoned arguments of their own”. There is quite a difference between Asbury and Sheffield.

He then proceeded to make more alarmingly false accusations, including “Sheffield has deliberately avoided hiring people of faith” which is scandalously untrue, as the most recent appointment is a committed Christian from the London Theological School who was chosen on academic qualities alone. Besides, the model for appointments that Asbury Theological Seminary uses isn’t allowed in British independent universities – thank God (apologies again to Simon Holloway*). The Sheffield University Equal Opportunities Policy and Code of Practice for Staff states that “The University will give fair consideration to all applicants for employment, supported through transparent procedures … ensuring appointments are based on individual merit” and “treating one person less favourably than another on the grounds of disability, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or belief or age is always illegal”. Italics, mine of course.

Later, echoing a comment on this initial conversation thread on James Crossley’s second post on the matter, Ben preached “Going forward one of the questions that ought to be seriously discussed is the issue of sensitivity to and tolerance of theological differences in the students and a thoughtful addressing of issues when students feel that pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith are at the least not fair, and hardly value neutral.” But all with these allegations fired, where is the evidence? Who are these more than just one or two “disgruntled students”, and when did they attend Sheffield? And “pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith”? Is this perhaps a reflection of his lack of ability to think critically? As I said above, one of the department’s aims is to “develop tolerant, professional, and informed attitudes to a variety of approaches to the biblical texts”. What is meant by “pejorative comments” anyway? Maybe the conclusion the student may arrive at that the Bible might not be the inerrant document they once thought it to be? These accusations could be potentially dangerous for Ben if someone took action on them. Perhaps he was talking about more than just “one or two disgruntled students” from the distant past, who “have felt both their faith and the Bible and its historical substance disrespected”, and they were not reflecting the current department at all. I discussed this conversation with friends who began to post on the matter, and I informed Ben of these responses.

SUDDENLY … The conversation on Ben’s blog comments DISAPPEARED!!! My! Did he realise he was wrong? Or did he consider the conversation inappropriate for his ‘Beliefnet’ blog? Whatever the reason, he made serious allegations against Sheffield which can no longer be seen. Dare I cast doubt on the academic integrity of Professor Ben Witherington? Kingsley Barrett, a conservative Christian, under whom he studied in Durham back in the 70s, always respected those who disagreed with him and merely asked for arguments with evidence. It’s a shame that principle doesn’t appear to have rubbed off on Ben. Regrettably, I am not holding my breath for any apology.

(This blithering scandal of Ben Witherington’s comments in “Christianity Today” has been discussed elsewhere on the blogs including those of: James Crossley (x3), Jim Linville, Jim West, and Pat McCullough, some of whom copied extracts of the original blog conversation which has now mysteriously disappeared from Ben’s blog.)

(*Roland Boer commented on James Crossley’s blog, “bewithering is becoming bewildering”)

(**Simon Holloway, a non-Christian student in Sydney, was one of those who originally posted about the controversy because he was “livid” that Ben Hinks, a Christian student at Sheffield, had thanked people for their “support, action” and, God forbid, “prayers”.)

There was an outpouring support last month for the almost-abolished Dept. of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield. Fortunately, the most innovative department of biblical research in the world was saved. There is some discontent, however.

Ben Witherington III, who teaches New Testament at the evangelical Asbury Theological Seminary, is featured in an article by Collin Hansen in Christianity Today (Oct. 15) about the affair. Hansen writes that the initial vision for the department, originally led by F. F. Bruce had been abandoned.

Bruce, the noted author of books such as Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, founded Sheffield’s department of biblical history and literature in 1947. But not all faculty have shared Bruce’s conservative convictions. Evangelically minded faculty, including Andrew Lincoln and Loveday Alexander, were not replaced with scholars who held similar views. Other faculty were “bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students’ faith,” according to Ben Witherington…

Now, as many bloggers and bloggatorial (I just made up a word! I rock!) commentators have pointed out, Witherington simply doesn’t know what “deconstruction” means, but that’s not the real point. The real point is that he is accusing people of attempting to undermine the religious beliefs of the students attending Sheffield University and the University hiring staff based on religious belief (or lack thereof).

moar funny pictures

Stephanie Louise Fisher took Witherington to task in asking him in a comment in an unrelated blog post if he would apologize. She also wrote a brief guest post on the non-faith-descontructing blog of Jim West, writing “I think he doesn’t understand what good critical Biblical scholarship is and ignores the fact that Sheffield encourages students to form their own opinions and do not dictate to them.” Three cheers for Stephanie!

In any case, Witherington said on his own blog:

I doubt there will be a public apology. There are too many wounded in action to account for. Honestly Stephanie, Sheffield did not act wisely in not hiring folks like Loveday Alexander or Andrew Lincoln once they were gone, as they at least nurtured people in their Christian faith.

A bit on an exchange between himself and Fisher ensues, in which he says:

Do a little historical research. Start with F.F. Bruce and the original purpose and focus of the Biblical Studies Faculty at Sheffield. Then compare that to where we are now.

Then he says:

The issue isn’t hiring someone on the basis of their faith especially if they do not have the credentials and the critical training for the job. The issue is deliberately avoiding hiring people of faith, and further the issue is deliberately trying to deconstruct someone else’s faith.

And finally writes:

All the positive testimonies of Sheffield students past and present attest that good things have happened at Sheffield. My own colleague Ruthanne Reese can attest to it. But this in no way comes to grips with those Sheffield students over many years who found the denials of historical substance in the Bible, among other things, not merely disturbing but problematic.

Witherington has also been taken to task by James Crossley (of Sheffield U.) here, here and most recently here, who  rather vociferously defends the reputation of the dept. from Witherington’s serious charges.

Rather than simply repeat those points, I’d like to take off in a rather different direction which might not endear me to too many readers, but what the hell? Before turning to a few choice phrases used by Witherington, I’d like to return briefly to the Christianity Today article. There one reads how Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary lamented the proposed closing (despite being rather conservative himself). The article continues:

Bock said dropping the historic discipline of biblical studies signaled a tendency toward secularization in British universities. Others noted, however, that evangelical scholarship is much stronger today than when Bruce launched the department following World War II.

If the proposed closure represented a deliberate turn towards secularism it was certainly a misbegotten one, since that department had already been secular for many years (of course, religious people can do excellent secular work). If anything, the recent situation reflects the common misconception that teaching about religions is essentially a religious act itself. This is hardly a necessary equation but it may have been held by some higher administration folks at Sheffield when they proposed shutting the department down. Folks in biblical studies and religious studies face it all the time. Many people just do not believe that religion can be studied non-religiously. I do not know the history of the department at all, but whatever it was when it started, it became a secular department and has been for some time. I see no reason for anyone to apologize for that. Still, the department has had on staff many ordained clergy over the years.

I think that the more secular a university (or society as a whole) gets, the more it would be willing and wanting to talk about religion as a factor in human history and culture. To refuse to talk about it is to concede the field to religious mystification, and that is the opposite of proper academic goals no matter how you slice it. What happens in, around and through human actions and experience is a fair subject for human inquiry. That is the essence of the humanities and social sciences. Religion is hardly some special dimension of experience or knowledge impenetrable to those who do not share the specific “secrets” of whatever faith someone else holds. Its strategies of mystification and curtains marked “Don’t look behind here” are exactly the sort of things that secular research is intended to probe. To mix a few metaphors, the “wizard” behind the screen is a little short, self-conscious and self-appointed emperor with not a stitch of clothes on. (For a recent example of this kind of thing, read Rick Wadholm’s post on how non-religious biblical scholarship is impossible because his religion is right).

Now, back to Witherington. First of all, what is this “bent on the deconstruction of the Bible,” stuff?  He says it like it is a bad thing. As I’ve noted, Sheffield is a SECULAR university. It is supposed to analytically dismantle, poke, prod, turn upside down, inside out, interrogate,  question and generally be a busy-body nosey skeptic about ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IT DECIDES IS WORTH STUDYING! That is simply what universities do. I’m sorry if Witherington never got the damn memo about it, but it is just one of those things most scholars (religious or otherwise) can figure out for themselves. What does Witherington think his religion is OWED by Sheffield University?

In any case, given the large number of people who have been associated with Sheffield and have written about modern reading strategies et. al. for the Bible, it is hardly the case that Sheffield has sought to “deconstruct” as in “destroy” the Christian scriptures. It has sought a myriad of new ways to understand them as the product of human culture and a tool for the creation and evolution of human culture.  I suppose for Witherington, that amounts to destruction, but it is a charge that says more about Witherington’s lack of understanding about academia than it does about Sheffield.

And what of the department “deliberately trying to deconstruct someone else’s faith”? No details. But lets suppose the worst case scenario: some faculty member forcing on students a “deconversion” rhetoric under fear of failing exams or having dissertations rejected. That would, of course, be despicable, and any such students have the right to complain to the relevant university (indeed legal) authorities, and should. Is this what Witherington is charging? If so, he had better cough up the details of the “too many wounded in action to account for”. What hordes are these? Sounds more like a martyrdom complex to me.

Here is the clincher. It seems as if the wounded in action are the “Sheffield students over many years who found the denials of historical substance in the Bible, among other things, not merely disturbing but problematic”.

Oh the poor  babies!

This calls for a lolcat!

moar funny pictures

If there are problems with the historicity of the biblical text a university professor would be doing her or his students a disservice by letting them persist in the belief that such problems did not exist. If the problems are such that the biblical account should be rejected outright, then that is what must be done. Student protests be damned. People unwilling to get with the program should expect to have difficulties.

Historians do not owe Latter Day Saint students kid glove deference to Mormon beliefs about the age and origins of the book of Mormon or the settlement of North America. Palaeontologists do not owe respect to those who propagate misinformation about fossils and proper analytical methods. Moses did not write the Pentateuch, there was no exodus from Egypt that corresponds to the biblical account in any meaningful way, David and Solomon never ran an empire, donkeys never said a word, and once the Romans killed him, Jesus stayed dead, just like dead people are supposed to do. The rest is myth making, and people have been making myths for millennia. Why treat the Bible any differently?

Yet, beyond the troublesome issues of the Bible not being as historically reliable as many assume, or how its multifarious versions, manuscripts and variants complicate the issue of canonicity, or the clear evidence of tendentious redaction, addition, editing, rewriting, messes with perceptions of its unity, there is  the fact that people in their late teens and twenties WILL challenge their most dearly held beliefs. It happens to everyone; it is called growing up. One does not have to be religious to experience it.

Universities only shape the nature of the questioning that people would do anyway. This is not a bad thing, either, and universities should not have to apologize for it. Complaining that newer faculty members at Sheffield did not follow the example of their predecessors who “at least nurtured people in their Christian faith” is part of the same ignorant bluster and posturing at which Witherington seems to excel. Professors are not hired to be pastors. At least not at real universities. Universities often hire councillors for students (and staff) going through rough patches, and most (all?) universities also have chaplains, too (are religious students more psychologically needy than their non-religious class-mates?). Religious students can also attend the church, synagogue, mosque, gurdwara or temple of their choice. Why should professors be judged for not tending to the spiritual “needs” of their students? The strength that comes from faith seems rather fragile sometimes.

Of course,  professors do not wish their students to become despondent. We wish the best for them, but if they are there to learn about the world as scholarship understands it, then we would be liars if we hid or swept under the carpet what we understand to be the most reasonable conclusions about the world just so we don’t upset someone’s feelings.

Professors in departments of Political Science are not expected to nurture the Conservative, Liberal, Republican or Marxist perspectives of their students. Historians do not have to nurture the conspiracy theories some students accept about JFK, 9/11, or fluoridated water.  Mathematicians do not have console students who feel ridiculed for liking the odd numbers more than the even ones. Why should Christian faith have to be nurtured by professors?

I wonder if Witherington would nurture the faith of a Buddhist student (should any attend Asbury), or would he try to convert her?

In a comment to one of Crossley’s posts, Witherington tries to weasel out of his this accusation, saying that he knows secular faculty can’t be expected to nurture faith, but it strikes me as a bit of disingenuous damage control. He continues:

Going forward one of the questions that ought to be seriously discussed is the issue of sensitivity to and tolerance of theological differences in the students and a thoughtful addressing of issues when students feel that pejorative comments about the Bible or about their faith are at the least not fair, and hardly value neutral.

“Pejorative comments about the Bible”? Again, is that a bad thing? What would these precious little debutantes think a fair comment about the Bible is? Good chunks of it strike a lot of people as dreadfully boring. Why should they not say it? The morality of Yahweh is often deplorable, he demands genocide and gives orders demanding that women raped in cities be executed for liking it. He engages in massive corporate punishment while Ezekiel meditates like a little pervert on whore Jerusalem’s breasts. Why should anyone in a post-holocaust, post-slavery, and post-women-aren’t-legal-persons, world say anything good about that despicable old tome? All of the Bible’s literary, ethical, theological values are open for discussion and debate. Why hold back?  Dr. Witherington, are YOUR views on the Bible value-neutral?

All of this drives home the need for the guild of biblical scholarship to pay more attention to the great divide between secular scholarship and religious biblical study as an extension of the church’s (or synagogue’s) intellectual engagement with its own traditions. At some point there is nothing but complete incompatibility between the two. The continued blurring is doing no one any good.

Technorati Tags: biblical+studies, Ben+Witherington, Asbury+Theological, Seminary, Sheffield+University, Bible, religion, secularism, academics

Many thanks to my blogging friend, John Anderson, who informs us:

See HERE.  You can hear a whole host of lectures from scholars such as Walter Brueggemann, Ben Witherington, Richard Hays, Dale Allison, John Barclay, Charles Talbert, Eugene Petersen, Bruce Longenecker, NT Wright, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Jurgen Moltmann.  These are a wonderful resource for students and scholars alike.  I am, as you may suspect, listening to my friend Brueggemann at present.

Fantastic! Thanks for the heads up, John!

Back in February of this year, I had the privilege of speaking at George Fox Seminary with Alan Hirsch, Dan Kimball, Len Sweet, and MaryKate Morse.

During the panel discussion, Alan Hirsch slipped into “instigator mode” (I think he was bored that day or was thirsty for a good ole’ fashioned brawl). Alan asked, “Frank, what do you think of the clergy and do you see a place for it?”

Having read and endorsed my book Pagan Christianity, Alan knew full well where I stood on the subject. My answer was simple: “Some of my best friends are clergymen … I shall put a period at the end of that sentence.” To which the audience laughed. We then went on to other matters.

The irony in Alan’s question was that we were all sitting in a seminary named after a man who was vehemently opposed to the clergy system and was sorely persecuted for it.

The full answer to Alan’s question is that my views on the clergy are identical to that of George Fox himself.

I felt that answering the question in this way could have created a potential riot (there were a good number of clergy in the room), so I chose to give the response I did, which brought some needed comic relief to the anticipated tension that Alan’s question brought to the audience.

That said, there are two things I want to share on the subject today:

First, I’ve become quite amazed at the number of pop “church” books that have come out since the release of Pagan Christianity which are trying quite desperately to defend the clergy/laity divide. A number of these books present themselves to be new, radical, and offering a different perspective on church. But if I may be candid, they merely rearrange the liturgical furniture and tweak the ecclesiastical vocabulary while leaving untouched the root issues of the church’s problems. None of them deal with the sacred cow of the clergy system—the pink elephant in the room that many Christians dare not touch. Most of these books are merely a rehash of most church renewal books that have come out over the last 50 years. Band-Aids and patchwork operations applied to a defective ecclesiology. And (to quote Led Zeppelin), “the song remains the same.” That always happens when one deals with the symptoms and not the root/systemic causes.

Point: You can rearrange the chairs on the Titanic all day long, but the ship is still going down.

Second, in this regard, I wish to point my readers to the work of Jon Zens. Zens is one of the few scholars outside the institutional church who is writing 100 years ahead of his time. A former clergy-man himself, Zens effectively shreds all the typical justifications for the clergy caste system and turns them into confetti. About a year ago he went nose-to-nose with another scholar and turned the shredder on high. You can read Jon’s incredible exchange here.

Check out Jon’s many articles on the subject at http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles.htm

But be forewarned: They are not for the faint in heart.

“The New Testament doctrine of ministry rests therefore not on the clergy-laity distinction but on the twin and complementary pillars of the priesthood of all believers and the gifts of the Spirit. Today, four centuries after the Reformation, the full implications of this Protestant affirmation have yet to be worked out. The clergy-laity dichotomy is a direct carry-over from pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism and a throwback to the Old Testament priesthood. It is one of the principal obstacles to the church effectively being God’s agent of the Kingdom today because it creates a false idea that only “holy men,” namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry. In the New Testament there are functional distinctions between various kinds of ministries but no hierarchical division between clergy and laity.”

~Dr. Howard Snyder

“Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism—when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts … such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change.”

~James D. G. Dunn

Here is a great article by Ben Witherington on women in ministry.  This guy has really done his homework and I really think he comes to some real reasonable conclusions.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2009/10/why-arguments-against-women-in-ministry-arent-biblical.html

Dr. Ben Witherington, well-respected New Testament scholar provides a nice, short critique of the common arguments against women in ministry in a post entitled “Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry are Unbiblical”. What are your thoughts on this issue?  What do you think of Dr. Witherington’s treatment of the debated biblical texts?

Title: Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude

Author: Ben Witherington III (his blog here)

Bibliographic info: 639 + 16 pages of indices

Cover: Hard

Publisher: IVP Academic (2007)

ISBN-10: 0830829326

ISBN-13: 9780830829323

Buy it at Amazon

With thanks to Adrianna Wright of Intervarsity Press for the free review copy!

Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians is part of a three volume set by Ben Witherington looking at the New Testament epistles. The other two volumes were both entitled Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, with one volume looking at Titus, 1-2 Timothy, and 1-3 John, while the other volume looked at 1 & 2 Peter.

Witherington admits that Hebrews could have been studied together with the Pastoral Letters, due to its affinities with Pauline literature, he included it with the epistles of the Lord’s brothers, however, because:

There are particular affinities between James and Jude as we shall see, but in view of Hebrews, James and Jude all being homilies written to Jewish Christians they deserve to be studied together. It appears that no arrangement of the so-called Catholic Letters will be able to fully account for all the possible intertextual issues that these documents raise. (pg 11)

Distinguishing between the New Testament epistles according to whether the intended audience was Jewish or Hellenized Christians sets the stage for the fresh approach that Witherington takes in this commentary, which is a socio-rhetorical look at the epistles.

By labeling his commentary series as “socio-rhetorical”, Witherington defines this as follows:

When I refer to “rhetoric” I am not talking about attempts to use modern rhetoric and rhetorical studies as windows into the New Testament text, however interesting. This is an ahistorical enterprise, not least because these methods did not exist in the first century. When I say “rhetorical commentary,” I am limiting myself to the sort of rhetoric that existed and could have been used by the writers of the New Testament – early Jewish rhetoric and Greco-Roman rhetoric. The reason for this limitation is simply – it avoids most of the dangers of anachronism.

Likewise, with social studies, for the most part I limit myself to material that can be derived form social historians of the relevant period. This involves using the works of Classics scholars who know the Greek and Roman social history and of social historians of early Judaism and early Christianity who can help us understand the very Jewish literature we are investigating in this volume. I make the occasional foray into the realm of social science (e.g. group-grid analysis) or cultural anthropology when it seems to work with the text of the New Testament as we have it, without trying to squeeze it into some sort of Procrustean bed. (pg 12)

Hebrews is the first of the three epistles that Witherington discusses. It starts off with a comprehensive introduction which deals with such issues as the authorship, provenance, date, canonization, and bibliography on the epistle.

A feature of this book that I particularly enjoyed was the many great excurses which are labeled as “A Closer Look.” One of the first excurses that Witherington provides is an eleven page look at the usage of the Psalms in the New Testament (pg. 109-120)

As to some of the controversial aspects of interpretation concerning Hebrews, while Witherington believes that Hebrews did originate within the Pauline circle, he denies that Paul himself was the author. At the end of presenting his case for who he thinks the author most likely is, Witherington asserts that, “In the end, no one fits the bill so well as Apollos to be author of this document.” (pg 24)

Also, he has a non-Calvinistic view on the warning passages in Hebrews, or as he himself states when commenting on Heb 6:1-8,

This is surely a description of a person who is saved and converted in the initial sense of the term saved. … Our author seems to believe that one can go too far, past the point of no return and no restoration. This text then cuts both ways, against either a facile notion that forgiveness is always possible no matter how severe the sin in question is, but it equally must count against the “eternal security” sort of argument as well. Our author clearly emphasizes the future and eschatological dimension of the pilgrimage to being fully and completely saved, and short of that climax one is not viewed as eternally secure, for one is not yet securely in eternity. … I thus conclude that the Reformed argument does not make sense of this particular text.  (pg 213, 215, 217)

The letters of James and Jude are just as good, with many interesting insights contained therein, and comprehensive looks at the topics pertinent to each of the two epistles.

I think that the socio-rhetorical nature of this commentary was perfect for shining light on James. As Witherington notes:

Sometimes the heritage of the Reformation is more of a burden than a blessing, for it has prevented whole generations of commentators, especially German ones, from recognizing the rhetorical skill and art and structure of James’s homily. Commentaries written in the last twenty years or so have begun to show some repentance from this travesty, but the various attempts to find structure and coherence in James’s discourse have seldom paid attention to rhetorical signals, preferring to use epistolary or literary analysis (e.g. searching for chiasms, inclusios and the like).  … What emerges from his [Duane Watson’s] convincing work is the degree to which James is relying on rhetorical conventions to help him organize and present his themes. (pg 448-449)

In the conclusion to his book, Witherington provides a good reason why one should study and learn from these three epistles:

Several things bind these three documents together, and it is not just the love of the Old Testament and Jewish lore and their creative handling of such material, including the Jesus tradition in James. It is the strong sense of the eschatological moment. All three authors write as those who are convinced they are living in the eschatological age under eschatological conditions. Their wisdom and advice are given accordingly. …

Furthermore, these documents share a common concern about the cultural pressures that can lead Christians to conform to worldly values or even contemplate one form or another of apostasy. (pg 638)

I definitely recommend this book for anyone who wants a fresh perspective on three of the most intriguing books of the New Testament.

Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary is one of my favorite New Testament scholars.  If you like NT scholarship that’s steeped in the cultural and historical context, then his work is well worth your attention.

Over on his blog, he’s just posted an examination of women in ministry that addresses some of the common scriptural objections.  I’m not totally sure I agree with him on every point, but this is an area about which he knows a great deal, and his argument is definitely something to consider.

I have had several people ask me the question lately of whether or not Christians should celebrate Halloween. Why not get an answer from someone who knows what he is talking about? Here is an excerpt:

Conservative Protestants might well object to the practice of Halloween on the grounds that it offers up a theology of the afterlife they do not agree with (i.e. they do not believe in purgatory or limbo), but it would be well if they evaluated the practice on the proper historical grounds, and not make the mistake of thinking the practice originally had purely pagan much less demonic origins, which is not in fact true.  Some churches today in fact have used the occasion to teach children about the saints in heaven and how they got there, especially focusing on the martyrs and the book of Revelation.

Read more…

Ben Witherington III will present a lecture on the topic, “Was Jesus the First Feminist?” Thursday evening, 7:30, at Kansas State University in the Alumni Center.

He will also be speaking on the topic, “An Eschatological Vision of Worship” Friday at 7:30 PM in Jollife Hall on the campus of Manhattan Christian College as part of the Western Fellowship of Professors and Scholars.

Both events are open to the public.

I have yet to read Dan Brown’s latest. It’s not that I won’t. When The Davinci Code became so hot, I read it. I loved the pace, keeping in mind it was fiction. However, people were drawn into the conversation about Church History and the discussions went beyond the style of the book. Dan Brown also opened himself up to critiques because he carried himself as more than a fiction writer. That allowed for the historical and theological issues to be addressed.

Ben Witherington takes on the critique of Brown’s latest. I will get this book as soon as possible. (Like I said, I’m a fan of good suspense.) Witherington’s critique isn’t just at Brown. He says this about our culture:

We live in a Jesus haunted culture that is both Biblically illiterate and at the same time is an entertainment culture. In this sort of environment which is increasingly less Christian,  anything can pass for truth or knowledge about Jesus or the Bible.

Our culture being illiterate is no excuse for the Church to be this way!

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Last night I watched the DVD, The Case for Faith, featuring Lee Strobel.  The video deals with two issues from the book that bears the same name: 1) How can Jesus be the only way? and 2) How can God exist and there be so much evil, pain, and suffering?

In the DVD, Strobel features the words of Charles Templeton prominently and lets his challenges to the Christian faith drive the discussion.  Templeton, if you recall, was a co-evangelist with Billy Graham back in the 1940’s.  Templeton suffered a crisis of faith and eventually turned his back on Christianity.  Strobel interviewed Templeton for his book, The Case for Faith, which quickly became a Christian apologetics classic.

The DVD answers these tough questions by interviewing some of Christianity’s greatest living apologists and scholars.  Some of those who participated were Craig Hazen, Greg Koukl, J. P. Moreland, N. T. Wright, Ben Witherington, and Peter Kreeft.  I may be leaving some out, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Along with these scholars, the film also features the stories of two people who suffered greatly, and how their suffering affected their relationship with God.  These stories are truly powerful and balance the documentary between intellectual arguments and heart-felt experience.

All in all, I highly commend this DVD to all Christians who have ever thought about these two key issues and to skeptics who are open to hearing for themselves from some of Christianity’s best and brightest.  This DVD was truly fantastic.  I regret waiting so long to see it.

Am primit ieri prin email, de la o prietenă, povestea convertirii unui student ateu în Chicago şi am fost impresionat de ea, aşa încât am decis să explorez puţin realitatea şi legitimitatea afişării ei pe blogul meu.

Ceea ce m-a facut puţin suspicios a fost fraza cu care se încheie mesajul. Ea sună cam aşa:

„If this story means anything to you, please pass it on to a friend or two. It is a true story and is not enhanced for publicity purposes.”

Fraza este tipică pentru mecanismul persuasiv ieftin folosit de diversele mesaje, adevărate sau false, care se răspândesc vital în spaţiul virtual. În ce mă priveşte, nu răspund niciodată la asemenea manipulări ieftine, căci am trăit prea mult sub comunism şi, aşa cum se ştie, sunt extrem de alergic la orice formă de manipulare, mai ales cea religioasă.

Am apelat deci, la “eternul” google şi iată ce am aflat.

1. Povestea se află până şi pe blogul reputatului teolog biblist Ben Witherington III (o găsiţi AICI) şi este certificată ca fiind adevărată. Cu această ocazia am aflat că Witherington are blog şi l-am trecut la blogroll.

2. Adevărul poveştii este certificat şi de site-ul Truth or fiction, care se ocupă de verificarea verifidităţii unor asemenea istorii.

3. Rev. John Powell, cel care spune povestea, într-adevăr există şi a predat până nu demult la Loyola University in Chicago. Aşa cum mă aşteptam, Loyola fiind o şcoală catolică, Rev. Powell este de fapt Fr. Powell, un reputat şi apreciat autor de scrieri cu caracter teologic, prihologic şi spiritual. Iată cum este el descris pe site-ul la care am făcut legătura mai sus:

„Father Powell has published 21 theological and psychological books, which have been translated into more than 30 languages. They also appear in the Bicentennial Reading List, which lists “the most significant books published in the history of the United States.” Currently the second best-selling Christian author in the history of the United States, John Powell ranks just behind one of his personal heroes, C.S. Lewis.”

Cu adevărat impresionant.

4. Din păcate povestea nu se încheie aici. Aşa cum arată textul de pe site-ul Truth or fiction citat mai sus, şi poate fi găsit pe numeroase alte site-ul web (ca de exemplu AICI şi AICI), Powell nu este doar un autor prolific şi cel care relatează, cu talent, povestea lui Tommy, ci şi inculpat în şase cazuri de hărţuire sexuală a unor tinere în timpul unor tabere cu caracter creştin. Unele dintre aceste site-un îl numesc pe Powel „former priest”, ceea ce ar putea însemna că, poate ca urmare a acestor acuzaţii, i s-a retras dreptul de a sluji liturghia.

Iată şi concluzia, tristă, a acestei poveşti:

„Father Powell was a popular priest and author in Chicago and was accused by six adults of having sexually abused them in the late 60s and early 70s.  The cases were resolved in a settlement with Powell in which no charges were filed but he did admit to the abuse.”

//

//

//

BW3 has posted an excellent review of the flick here that I just had to pass along to all of you. Unlike Jim West, BW3 thought great things about the movie. Where I come from, we call these two divergant opinions ‘fighten; words.’ Yes, truley, ‘thems fighten words.’   BW3 vs. JW,  I think a ‘celebrity’ death match is in order at SBL.

I post this blog with the utmost humility because I have an enormous amount of respect for Ben Witherington. Nonetheless, there have been two of his blog posts in particular that have me wondering if he’s getting a little too creative with the facts in order to stir up publicity. And so this blog by no means is to call out Ben Witherington on his blog posts (in light of the respect I have for him), but rather a question to you, my blog readers. What is your assesement? Is he going to far with his creativity in order to stir up a possibility that is likely?

The Papias Stele

In an interesting blog on a stele in honor of a man named Papias (more on this here), Witherington gives good discussion and makes some interesting observations. But note some of the construals:

Now the third line in the inscription has the word CHRESTOS which was sometimes mistaken for CHRISTOS, but it appears often enough in ancient inscriptions and has a meaning range from upright to worthy to anointed. It is an honorific adjective in any case. Let’s suppose for a moment it means any one of these three possibilities.  Its not the sort of honorific inscription one might expect for a literal shepherd. But let us suppose it is a character description for a Christian leader who is a morally upright shepherdof his people and is being honored for his leadership.   The last line of the inscription is more mundane— ‘to those passing by, Greetings!’  As you know however, the word ‘grace’ is in fact a modified form of the word greetings, and when one couples this with the double entendre CHRESTOS it is more than possible that this is a Christian inscription made generic enough that the casual observer would see this as a normal grave inscription, but the Christian might well make more of it.  It is of course odd to us that a deceased person would be portrayed as greeting the passerby, but a Christian might well think of a grace wish to passersby.

Only to conclude:

If we take all of this together it is indeed possible that this is the grave stele of Bishop Papias though we certainly can’t be sure by any means.

I do appreciate his giving lip service to caution in this last clause, but Witherington nonetheless gives the impression that he believes it to be true.

The James Ossuary

Just when you thought the James Ossuary was old news, Witherington brings blogdom up to speed with the trial against the founders of the James Ossuary (more on this here). Essentially, these founders are on trial for forgery for adding the inscription ”Jacov son of Joseph, his brother is Yeshua.” However, it appears that the defendants, after three years of trial, are mounting up a strong case for the inscription’s authenticity (more on this at the BAR website here). Okay, fine.

Notice, however, the equation Witherington makes that if the inscription is indeed authentic then it is in fact evidence of the Holy Family’s existence:

Now what are the implications of both Golan’s exoneration (one matter) and the ossuary having a genuine inscription on it (a separate matter)? Well for one thing the IAA is going to have a lot of egg on its face, and will have wasted a lot of money and time in a fruitless and vindictive law suit. But more importantly for historical reasons, the James ossuary will once again provide us with vital extra-Biblical evidence about the holy family, its social status and inter-relationships, and of course the historical existence of James, Joseph, and Jesus.  So much for the ‘God who doesn’t exist’ documentary.  History and archaeological evidence has a way of making liars of the more extreme skeptics eventually. (emphasis mine)

Such a conclusion is perplexing to me. Now he does again give caution in the next paragraph with the insertion of the word “if” (“Of course if the James ossuary is indeed genuine and genuinely a relic of the Holy family, it provides us with an inconvenient truth for some Catholics and Orthodox Christians who believe Jesus had no blood brothers and Mary had no other children than Jesus.” [emphasis mine].), but it seemes clear to me that Witherington is not suggesting any contingecy, rather he again is going a bit too far in saying more than the evidence lends itself to. But again, that’s just my opinion. Perhaps I’m overexegeting his blogs and so I look forward to your thoughts, observatiosn, and comments.

Why do so many Christians, notably conservative Evangelicals and Reformed brothers and sisters, often put the glorification of God at odds with human attempts at excellence?  Does striving for greatness always lead to human pride and undercut the magnification of God?  Does a strong focus on the needs and concerns of human beings always result in a lack of focus on God as the center of all? Must one think less of himself in order to think more of God?  Does Scripture lift God up by bringing human beings down?  

In the background of all of these questions lies a larger, more foundational debate over our understanding of the nature of God, the nature of Man and their relationship.  I am referring to the misguided line of thinking I hear so often, especially in more Reformed circles, that people either have a man-centered or God-Centered theology, view of the gospel, approach to Christian faith, etc.  I believe this distinction and concern is valid and helpful to a degree, but often gets pushed too far, leading to a confused, false either-or view of God, human beings and the gospel.

The internet monk, Michael Spencer, recently chimed in on this issue with a post entitled On Being Too God-Centered.  You can also find a more head-on critique from Ben Witherington in a post entitled For God So Loved Himself: Is God a Narcissist?.  Witherington’s concern is that God is sometimes

“presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God’s self-adulation and praise.” 

This is a significant issue and deserves careful reflection and a more nuanced understanding of the relationship of God and his human image-bearers.  

In the next few posts I will unpack some loose thoughts on both the validity of the man-centered vs. God-centered concern and then offer some healthy push back on the fuzzy, over-extension of this line of reasoning.  I see a distortion of both the character of God and what it means for human beings to glorify God.  

Michael Spencer began his post on this topic with a wise disclaimer I would like to echo: These posts are, without a doubt, an experiment in exploration and articulation. Many won’t care for where it goes but we must wrestle with these questions in a honest and gracious way.  

Stay tuned.

I’m not sure what to name this post: whether it is a sympathetic or friendly defense of N. T. Wright’s view of justification against what Witherington calls “conservative Evangelicals from the űber-Reformed side of the ledger (i.e John Piper, D.A. Carson, Simon Gathercole, etc) or a reflection of Witherington’s own view on justification. Perhaps it is both. (Read it for yourself and let me know what you think). It’s good and reasonable that the great Witherington finally enters the “justification debate” conversation. Interestingly enough, Witherington calls the on-going dialogue an ‘in-house’ fight. He’s probably correct! First, Witherington observes and praises the great Bishop for attempting, at least, to grasp the whole of the divine salvation-narrative,

“Let us first start with the big picture. Wright is a global thinker, by which I mean he is not into doing theology by sound-bytes, little snippets of texts here there and yonder strung together because they share some common vocabulary word. He is also an exegete as well as a theologian, and as an exegete he knows that a text without a context is just a pre-text for whatever you want it to mean. It has been, and remains one of the great problems of systematic theology, especially as done in the West since the Middle Ages, that it tends to mine the Biblical quarry for ideas and concepts and then thrust them into some Procrustean bed, call it a pre-existing theological schema, where they do not comfortably fit. Wright, quite properly, insists on reading Paul in the context of early Judaism and early Christianity, a necessary step for one who takes history seriously and does not think one can do Pauline theology in isolation from Paul’s original contexts. But herein, already, lies part of the problem with the űber-Reformed. This is threatening because it means that various later Lutheran and Calvinist theological perspectives on Paul turn out to be wrong, and not in accord with what Paul actually said and meant…What makes this an especially noxious and obnoxious situation is that in fact, at the end of the day, Wright is taking a very traditional view of the doctrine of justification, namely that Paul, when he uses the dikaios/dikaiosune etc. word group is largely referring to forensic righteousness, right standing with God established by grace and through faith in the dying and rising Messiah Jesus. Further, in very Reformed fashion he wants to argue that in Romans and elsewhere what the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ refers to is God’s covenant faithfulness to promises he made. Sounds like a good traditional Reformed reading of Paul to most of us.”

Next, Witherington brings his own evaluation of the “Sola Scriptura” gentlemen. He notes, “Now you might expect that those who wave the flag of sola Scriptura most fervently would agree that all later systematic theologies ought to be regularly checked or critiqued by the Biblical text, rightly understood in its proper original contexts. But sadly it is not so. Phrases like ‘imputed righteousness’ are assumed to be so central to Paul’s soteriology, so non-negotiable (even though you will look in vain for this phrase in any Pauline letter), that when Tom Wright questions some of the aspects of such a view on the basis of a close exegesis of Pauline texts, you would have thought he was guilty of being Uzzah, the man with unclean hands who reached out to grab the ark of the covenant when it was falling, and was zapped (1 Chron. 13.9-10). Only Bishop Wright has not been zapped, indeed his work has been blessed and well received far and wide, to the dismay of the űber-Reformed. They are worried about his growing influence. One wonders if pure jealousy has entered into the picture here, because of the enormous influence of Bishop Wright’s work, who is probably the most well known, well reviewed Evangelical scholar in the world, whether we are referring to exegesis or theology.

Part of the problem here is that, as it turns out, the űber-Reformed too often want to do theology in isolation from the first century Jewish and historical context of Paul. And there is a reason for this. “

I find the next statement quite helpful, as a basic hermeneutical principle (perhaps a reasonable approach that falls under the rubrics of [one's] philosophy of interpretation), “We should be able to read the Bible without the necessary extra heavy lifting of studying it in its original historical, literary, rhetorical, social, and linguistic contexts, because after all the Bible should only be interpreted in the light of other verses in the Bible, or otherwise you have denied the perspicuity, the clarity of Scripture. In other words, the concept of the clarity of Scripture is used to bolster: 1) obscurantism, and 2) a particular tradition of Protestant interpretation of Scripture which is assumed to be the ‘plain sense meaning of the Biblical text’ without all the excess baggage of historical and contextual study.”

On the issue of “imputed righteousness” and “forensic justification,” Witherington remarks that about Wright, “As Tom Wright says, once you realize the forensic character of what Paul says when he is talking about justification, it becomes plain that God/Christ who is the judge is not imputing his personal righteousness to the man standing in the courtroom who is guilty as sin. No, he is legally declaring the man in right-standing with God on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ, the benefits of which are appropriated through faith in Christ. Christ’s personal righteousness does not enter into the bargain or transfer here.”

It is uncertain the conclusion:”Christ’s personal righteousness does not enter into the bargain or transfer here” is Witherington’s or Wright’s or simply Witherington’s reading of Wright?

Isn’t this obvious? N.T. Wright is no slave or respecter of tradition (s), call it “Reformed Theology” (RT) if you will, “But the problem is not just that Tom has skewered some sacred cows in his own tradition when it comes to either Bibliolatry or the Reformed tradition of interpreting Paul. No, the problem is that Tom refuses to take the traditional Reformation approach to Jews and Judaism and Paul as a Jewish theologian, which quite frankly are at least anti-Judaistic when they are not plainly just anti-Semitic (for example in the case of Luther).

Witherington is correct by naming the justification debate an ‘in-house’ fight/struggle. It is indeed a friendly endeavour among siblings living under the same tent, of the same household. Or let’s just simply call it a fight between children of the same parents? The big difference is that one of the siblings wants to grow up, gets with life on his own, perhaps acting and moving independently from his parents’ counsel. But he has not rejected mom’s and dad’s wisdom altogether. He still loves the old house, mom and dad, his brothers and sisters, and the neighborhood which they grew up together. But he feels that it is time to leave the familiar zone, move out of the house and rents his own apartment, while the other siblings insist mama’s house is our permanent dwelling place. It is safer to continue being stay-at-home children. Mom’s and dad’s counsels are irrevocable, they say and maintain, even when they’re wrong or miss the mark sometimes!!!

Witherington praises Wright for attempting to put everything in context, giving us a synoptic account of both narratives of the Old and New Testaments, and of God’s story with the whole creation and his covenant faithfulness to them, respectively, “Bishop Wright believes that Paul is not an early version of a supercessionist, one who believes that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity as the true Biblical religion. He believes that Paul sees those who are ‘in Christ’, both Jew and Gentile, as the eschatological completion of the one people of God for whom God all along had a plan. One of the real strengths of Wright’s view is that it accounts for the whole Biblical witness, both OT and NT from a Jewish, and yet Christian, point of view. ”

And I bring this post with this final observation, “Part of the problem between Wright and the űber-Reformed is that they have different views of covenant theology. Wright is a good enough exegete to allow Paul’s words in Galatians 4 or in Romans to have their full weight, which means one cannot say that the new covenant is simply the renewal of the Mosaic one, only with better Energizer batteries included in the form of the Spirit, who enables us to keep it.

No, for Paul the new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic one, which in turn means that the Mosaic covenant had a temporal and temporary function. This becomes especially clear in 2 Cor. 3 in Paul’s contrast between the ministry of the covenant of law which is death-dealing rather than life-giving, and the ministry of the new covenant which involves the Holy Spirit which gives life. Paul says the former covenant has a fading splendor whereas the latter covenant has an enduring one, not least because it involves all of us being transformed into the glorious image of Christ. One covenant is completed and fulfilled in the new covenant, the other covenant is made obsolete, through the death of Christ absorbing the curse sanctions of that Mosaic covenant, the penalty for its violation.”

Do stay in tune, Witherington will continue with this conversation.

Here comes the massive link update around the Christian blog world. The new URL for BWIII’s blog is http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/