{"id":874,"date":"2009-09-25T14:49:11","date_gmt":"2009-09-25T14:49:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image--prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html"},"modified":"2009-09-25T14:49:11","modified_gmt":"2009-09-25T14:49:11","slug":"the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html","title":{"rendered":"The Indelible Image– Prologue to NT Theology and Ethics"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Indelible_Image_1[1].JPG\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Just released this month is the first volume of my two volume study of the theology and ethics of the NT.  Here as a sample is some of the Prologue to this volume that deals with important presuppositional and prolegomena issues.   See what you think.   BW3<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

PROLOGUE: BLUE PRINTS AND BY LAWS<\/p>\n

A<\/span><\/span>Let us
\nassume that the notion of a right interpretation of the Bible is not
\nmeaningless, but it is eschatological.@<\/span><\/span>C<\/span><\/span> Hans Frei[1]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>       <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A<\/span><\/span>Let us
\nremember that the story is called ><\/span><\/span>Good
\nNews.=<\/span><\/span> It is
\nnot a rule book. It is not a set of doctrines. It is above all not a ransom
\nnote. It is a love letter.@<\/span><\/span>C<\/span><\/span> Wayne A. Meeks[2]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. The Point of
\nDeparture<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It has been said
\nthat where one starts predetermines where one will end up.  <\/span>I am not totally convinced this is so, but I
\ndo think it would be wise if I lay some of my cards on the table at the
\noutset.  <\/span>I trust you will find there are
\nno jokers in the deck.  <\/span>A point of
\ndeparture at the least involves picking a particular trajectory or direction to
\npursue.   <\/span><\/p>\n

In his recent helpful
\nlittle theological study Dennis Kinlaw suggests Let<\/u>=<\/span><\/span>s Start with Jesus<\/u>.[3]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>I like this line of thinking, especially of
\ncourse for Christians, but there are some problems with it. The story of Jesus
\nis the climax of the Biblical narrative, neither its beginning nor end, nor its
\ncenter.[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span> <\/span>From a
\nnarratological point of view it is difficult to start the tale at the climax.  <\/span>It=<\/span><\/span>s
\nrather like coming into a movie when its two-thirds finished.  <\/span>Nevertheless, from a theological and ethical
\npoint of view, I think Kinlaw is quite right. 
\n<\/span>If we are to understand God and the divine blue print for humankind we
\nneed to begin where the light is brightest and the insights into divine
\ncharacter the clearest.  <\/span><\/p>\n

This in turn means
\nthat for a Christian he or she must first <\/i>learn to read the Bible back
\nto front, so to speak. One needs to know the story of Jesus and the revelation
\nof God in Christ, and then read the OT in light of it.  <\/span>This is precisely what we so often find the
\nwriters of the NT doing.  <\/span>Their
\nexperience of and worship of Christ caused a Copernican revolution in their
\nthinking.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Take, for example,
\nthe case of Paul. Though as a Pharisee Paul had looked at life through the lens
\nof the Mosaic Law, now as a Christian he looks at all things through the eyes
\nof Christ, so to speak. This doesn’t mean he is leaving behind law or
\nimperatives. It means he will view God’s Law now through his Christological
\nlens. Too much of what passes for NT Theology or NT Ethics does not in fact
\nstart with Jesus, either the person or his words and work.   <\/span>While NT theology and ethics must not be
\nChristomonistic (there are other obvious dimensions to these subjects even when
\nexamined in a Christian way), nevertheless it ought to be what the NT writers
\nthemselves saw theology and ethics as beingB<\/span><\/span>
\nChristologically focused.  <\/span>This has
\nparticular implications for both belief and behavior, and it is the latter
\nwhich often gets neglected.  <\/span>The call is
\nfor the Christian to be Christ-like, to follow Christ=<\/span><\/span>s
\nexample includes the call to embody the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, not
\nas just one possible Christian ethical stance but as an essential part of any
\nChristian ethical stance.  <\/span>As we will
\nsee, there are some pretty radical consequences to starting the NT theological
\nand ethical discussion with Jesus, and not with Paul, or someone else.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Paradoxically,
\nwhat this Christian hermeneutical move does not entail however is reading the
\nOT in a non-historical manner, by which I mean reading it without a sense of
\nthe development or progress of revelation through time and the con-commitment
\ndevelopment of God=<\/span><\/span>s people
\nand their understanding of God over time, and indeed the development of what is
\ncalled variously the history of Israel, or salvation history.  <\/span>On the one hand, the OT can be and should be
\nread as the Jewish Scriptures that they are, and they deserve to be heard on
\ntheir own terms.  <\/span>These books were not
\nwritten by Christians nor in the first instance for Christians, although as the
\nNT writers were to say later, God had the later Christian audience in view as
\nwell from the outset.  <\/span>On the other hand,
\nthe very existence of even just the Gospels and their substance, never mind the
\nrest of the NT show that Jesus and his followers did not believe the OT was<\/i> the end of the story or even a self-contained
\nstory.   <\/span>It was not viewed from a
\ndoctrinal point of view as a closed canon either, with Malachi or some other OT
\nbook as the finish line.  <\/span>More on this in
\na moment.  <\/span>For a Christian to fail to
\nread the OT in the light of the Christ event is to fail to follow the example
\nof the NT writers themselves. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

There are other
\ntheological and ethical issues we must introduce, before saying more about
\nconcepts of progressive revelation and Christologically focused readings of the
\nOT.  <\/span>Here it must be stressed that the
\nChristian approach to the OT has to avoid both a Gnostic or Marcionite approach
\n(treating the OT as if it was pointless or useless for Christian theology and
\nethics, or as if creation theology and history didn’t much matter) and also a
\npurely non-Christian interpretation or valorization of the OT while still
\nrespecting and learning from Jewish and other forms of non-Christian
\ninterpretation of the OT.  <\/span>Much of the OT
\ndoes not require, and some of it will not submit easily to a Christological reading
\nand so there must be some care and balance in how a Christian reads the OT, not
\nturning it into some sort of Christian allegory or study of the Incarnation
\nbefore there ever was an Incarnation.[5]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>History must be respected, and Christian
\ntheology must also be served.  <\/span>One
\nexample must serve us here.<\/p>\n

As I write this I
\nam staring at a replica icon given to me the last time I taught in Moscow, which comes from
\nthe very monastery where Rubliev first made the icon of the ><\/span><\/span>OT Trinity=<\/span><\/span>.  <\/span>It is a picture of the three angels who dined
\nwith Abraham.  <\/span>In my view, a proper
\nChristian reading of that OT story will say on the one hand that that story is
\nabout angels, who represent God, not about members of the Trinity, but in light
\nof the NT, one can talk about that angelophany as perhaps a ><\/span><\/span>foreshadowing=<\/span><\/span>
\nwhat is to come.   <\/span>Talking about typology and foreshadowing preserves the historical
\ngivenness of the OT while still reading the material in light of its NT sequel.<\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

B. Why Privilege
\nthe NT Documents in such a Study?                      <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

One may well ask–
\nWhy narrow oneself to theology and ethics in and of the New Testament?  <\/span>Why privilege these twenty seven
\ndocuments?  <\/span>It is a fair question.  <\/span>The first reason is in fact an historical
\none.  <\/span>All other things being equal, the
\nhistorian will want to go with the earliest and best evidence about a subject,
\nthe evidence that can be traced back to the eyewitnesses or those who knew
\nthem.  <\/span>The presumption must be that these
\nwitnesses are more likely to know what was going on, what was thought and said,
\nat the beginning of the Jesus movement. 
\n<\/span>And in fact, the earliest documents we have are those twenty seven which
\nare currently in the canon of the NT.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

There are only a
\nvery few other non canonical documents which may be considered first century
\nA.D. sources of information about early ChristianityC<\/span><\/span>
\nthe Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, possibly 2 Clement, but
\nprobably not the Gospel of Thomas.  <\/span>I
\nrule out Thomas for the very good reason that it reflects a knowledge of all
\nfour canonical Gospels and their editing and has an ethos and character quite
\nunlike our earlier more Jewish sources. It seems clearly to have been written
\nin the second century A.D. and probably in the latter part of that
\ncentury.   <\/span>And while these other first
\ncentury documents are very interesting, they are also in various ways
\nderivative.  <\/span>For example 1 Clement is so
\ntransparently dependent on 1 Corinthians, and the Didache reflects material we
\nfind in the Gospel of Matthew.   <\/span>Even on
\nthe showing of the Jesus seminar, the Gospel of Thomas may <\/i>provide us with one or two more otherwise unknown parables of
\nJesus, but they really add nothing significant to our understanding of Jesus
\nthat we could not have derived from the earlier Gospel material. On the whole
\nit is fair to say we don=<\/span><\/span>t
\nlearn very much new<\/i> about first century Christian theology or ethics
\nfrom these documents.  <\/span><\/p>\n

And of course
\nbesides this historical judgment about our earliest and best sources, there is
\nalso the fact that the early church of the fourth century, both in the east and
\nthe west, concurred on these twenty seven books being Scripture.  <\/span>This was a theological judgment as much as it
\nwas an historical one, as it was decided that these twenty seven documents were
\nnormative and authoritative witnesses to the Gospel truth and the apostolic
\nevidence, suitable for use in faith and practice and particularly in worship,
\nincluding in the teaching and preaching of Christian theology and ethics.  <\/span>These reasons are sufficient rationale in my
\nview for concentrating on these books and not on others.  <\/span>They are our earliest, best, and most clearly
\nsanctioned witnesses to early Christian belief and behavior.  <\/span>Thus this study will limit itself to what we
\nfind in the NT itself. That is more than enough of a landscape to peruse in one
\nforay.[6]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

C.    
\n<\/span><\/span>Divine Revelation and NT Valorization <\/p>\n

Another of my
\nassumptions, is that the Bible is both the words of human beings and also, in
\nand through those words, the living Word of God.   <\/span>It seems quite impossible to me to deal with
\na subject like NT Theology or Ethics without having clear in one=<\/span><\/span>s mind what one thinks about the
\nconcept of divine revelation.  <\/span>If one
\ndenies that revelation from God is even possible, then it is understandable
\nthat one will be uncomfortable with talking about ><\/span><\/span>the
\ntheology=<\/span><\/span> or ><\/span><\/span>the ethics=<\/span><\/span>
\nof the New Testament.  <\/span>After all, there
\nare a variety of human authors and editors of the material in the New
\nTestament, and one cannot expect them to simply all agree as if by magic,
\nespecially when many of them wrote while being quite unaware of what other NT
\nwriters were or would say about a variety of topics.  <\/span>It is the presumption of a divine mind behind
\nand speaking to and through all the human minds reflected in the NT that makes
\na topic like NT Theology or NT Ethics a viable possibility.  <\/span><\/p>\n

If you are a
\nstudent of church history at all, you will have noticed how often strong
\ndisagreements and flat contradictions have characterized that history. Were the
\nNT just another church document, we would expect it to mirror these same sorts
\nof flaws, but in fact it reflects a remarkable degree of harmony and unity
\nthrough out, both in its theologizing and ethicizing. For example, we do not
\nfind one NT book arguing that Jesus is not<\/i>
\nthe divine Son of God, whilst others argue for the case.  <\/span>We do not find one NT book arguing holy
\nbehavior is optional for Christians, whilst others argue it is mandatory.  <\/span>If all Scripture, including the NT books, is
\nindeed God-breathed then we may anticipate there being some sort of unity
\nwithout uniformity in the NT literature, and in fact there is such a unity in
\nthe midst of diversity and difference.<\/p>\n

I have stressed in
\nThe Living Word of God<\/u> that if we take an inductive approach to the
\nissue of what the phrase ><\/span><\/span>the
\nWord of God=<\/span><\/span> means in
\nvarious NT witnesses, and take an inductive approach to what inspiration
\namounts to and looks like, then we will come to the conclusion that various NT
\nwriters believed they spoke and wrote not only their own words but indeed the
\nWord of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  <\/span>But what inspiration actually looks like is
\nwhat we find in the NT itself.  <\/span>This
\nmeans that preconceived ideas about how the Word of God or ><\/span><\/span>truth=<\/span><\/span>
\ncan or should be expressed must be jettisoned in favor of a detailed
\nexamination of how it has been expressed <\/i>in various genre of literature
\nand in various forms of discourse in the New Testament.[7]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span><\/p>\n

The Word of God that we have may not be the form of the Word of God we
\nmight want, since it has many peculiar features, including varying testimonies
\nto the same events, and is often general when we would like it to be specific
\nand vice versa, but we have what we have. 
\n<\/span>Furthermore, it=<\/span><\/span>s
\nnot merely a bunch of eternal principles which are to be ferreted out of a mass
\nof cultural forms of expression.   <\/span>It
\nwill not do to take a docetic approach to the Bible.  <\/span>Rather we must recognize the incarnational
\nform of God=<\/span><\/span>s
\nrevelation as it has come in a particular language at a particular time in
\nparticular forms of expression to particular first century authors and
\naudiences.  <\/span>The text of the NT does not
\nhave a meaning apart from its particularity. 
\n<\/span>It has a meaning in its particularity. 
\n<\/span>This is what we should expect since God came in person into human
\nhistory in Christ. An incarnational God quite naturally is witnessed to by an
\nincarnational text, full of historical particularities. This is one reason why
\nI will not be talking about the theology or ethics of the NT <\/i>in this
\nfirst volume but rather about the theologizing and ethicizing of particular NT
\nwriters.  <\/span>And as my friend and colleague
\nA.J. Levine reminded me, the NT authors are writing to followers of Jesus, who
\nneed to hear particular aspects of the ‘good news’. Thus there is a
\npraxis-oriented and person-oriented aspect to the study – the theologizing and
\nethicizing is not a ‘one size fits all’ model, since human beings are not all
\nthe same.  <\/span>We all have different needs,
\ngifts, and talents. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

D. Non-Autonomous
\nTexts, Non- Reader Originated Meaning, and Non-Canonical Readings of the NT<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I have come to the
\nconclusion that there is no such thing as ><\/span><\/span>the
\nautonomy of the text=<\/span><\/span>,
\ndespite many protests to the contrary in our era.  <\/span>Furthermore, reader-response criticism of the
\nNT has frankly led people astray about the nature of meaning and how it works
\nin NT texts.   <\/span>In fact, only in a
\nliterate text-bound Internet age like ours would a thesis about the autonomy of
\ntexts or one about meaning being in the eyes of the avid reader even be
\npossible.  <\/span>But it is quite impossible as
\na way of looking at the NT when one realizes that the NT texts are just parts
\nof or surrogates for the oral speech of specific individuals like Paul or
\nPeter.  <\/span>While it is not possible to
\nbecome mind readers or channelers of the minds of deceased NT writers, we may
\nspeak of the NT texts as expressing a portion of the thoughts and meaning of
\nvarious NT writers.  <\/span>The fact that we are
\nactive readers requires that we be aware and also wary of this fact lest the
\ntext be read anachronistically over and over again. We must show respect for
\nthe original historical authors and the meanings they encoded into their words
\nand sentences and discourses and seek first to understand what they wrote on
\ntheir terms, not ours.  <\/span>This of course
\nrequires actual historical study of the Biblical text.  <\/span>This is not an optional added extra feature
\nto understanding the NT, it is essential to the study of the NT.  <\/span>Not even NT theology or ethics should be
\nstudied in a non-historical manner.    <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The NT texts are
\nextensions and expressions of the historical persons who wrote them. They did
\nnot exist in isolation when they were written and they do not exist in
\nisolation today.  <\/span>They were only part <\/i>of
\nan ongoing conversation and communion between believers then, and they are now
\nas well.[8]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>By this I mean, that we have more than
\nliterary evidence about the past.  <\/span>We
\nalso have material and cultural evidence through the hard work of
\narchaeologists and historians.  <\/span>We of
\ncourse also have some of their source material, namely the OT!  <\/span>What we do not have in the NT is a sense of
\ncanon, if we are referring to the NT writings themselves, except perhaps in 2
\nPeter 3.  <\/span>There Paul=<\/span><\/span>s letters are ranked along side ><\/span><\/span>the other Scriptures=<\/span><\/span>. 
\n<\/span>Thus we do begin to see the process of canonization already during the
\nNT period.  <\/span><\/p>\n

And this very
\nhistorical perspective is one reason why we cannot speak about the theologizing
\nand ethicizing going on in the NT and canonical theology or canonical criticism
\nin the same breath.  <\/span>There was no NT
\ncanon during the NT period, and it is not the later fact that there would be
\n<\/i>a canon that shapes this material or
\ndetermines its theological or ethical contours.<\/i> Canonical theology is an ex
\npost facto <\/i>thing which by definition couldn=<\/span><\/span>t
\nexist in any full sense before the fourth century A.D. if we are including the
\nNT canon in the discussion.   <\/span>In other
\nwords, the theology and ethics in<\/i> the
\nNT is one thing, canonical theology is something else.  <\/span><\/p>\n

It is not the
\ncanonizing of this material in the first instance that gives it authority or
\nnormativity in the church.  <\/span>It already
\nhad that before there was a canon for the very good reason that it was
\napostolic testimony which spoke the truth about Jesus and other subjects
\nimportant to early Christians.  <\/span>It is the
\ntruthful and apostolic character that gave these documents authority, not the
\nchurch=<\/span><\/span>s later
\nvalorization of these books, though that accelerated the process of their
\nacceptance and recognition, even including disputed books like 2 Peter and
\nJude.  <\/span>And just as it is not the
\ncanonizing of these documents that gave them authority in the first instance,
\nso also it is not the ><\/span><\/span>church=<\/span><\/span> which gave them authority in the first
\ninstance. <\/p>\n

We need to be as
\nwary of an ecclesiocentric<\/i> approach
\nto NT Theology and Ethics as we need to be wary of a canonical<\/i> one if our goal is to understand this material in its
\noriginal first century contexts.  <\/span>The question
\nto be asked is why these documents were deemed authoritative and normative in
\nthe very era in which they were writtenB<\/span><\/span>
\nthe first century A.D.  <\/span>It is clearly not
\nbecause they were already part of a collection of books called the New
\nTestament! This means that they must have been viewed as having some sort of
\ninherent authority, not an authority derived from later church councils or
\nevaluations.  <\/span>This inherent authority has
\nto do with their apostolic truth content. At this juncture it will be good to
\nhave a brief dialogue with Francis Watson’s discussions about these very
\nmatters. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

E. Biblical Theology and New
\nTestament Theology<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

            <\/span>It
\nis one of the fundamental assumptions of this entire study that what is
\nhistorically false cannot possibly be theologically true, when a theological
\nassertion is being made about something historical.  <\/span>As applied to our study what I mean, for
\ninstance, is that books written by Jews for Jews, and not for Christians in the
\nfirst instance, who did not yet exist, cannot lead to the conclusion that the
\nOT is simply a Christian book and its truth can only be properly understood or
\ninterpreted by faithful Christians. This whole approach to the matter seems to
\nme to entail a fundamental denial of the very nature of God’s revelation and
\nits progressive character, and furthermore a denial that the Biblical message
\nis not merely for the found but also for the lost.  <\/span>A theology of revelation or canon or of the
\nSpirit that involves ignoring the historical facts, or worse, denying them is
\nnot a proper Biblical theology at all.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>Francis
\nWatson in his stimulating study Text and Truth. Redefining Biblical Theology<\/u>,  <\/span>insists that the “Spirit of truth bears
\nwitness to the grace and truth that are to be found in the enfleshed Word not
\ndirectly but in and through the Christian
\ncommunity–in and through its preaching and worship, its sacraments and
\ncanonical texts. These texts are foundational to the life of the church, not on
\nthe legalistic and<\/i> biblicistic
\ngrounds that they possess an inherent, absolute authority to which we are bound
\nto submit, but on the grounds that in them we encounter the particular life
\nupon which the communal life of the church is founded: the life that is the light
\nnot only of the church but of the world.”<\/i>[9]<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i><\/span><\/a>   <\/span><\/p>\n

Apparently on this
\nshowing the Spirit did not show up on planet earth prior to or outside the
\ncontext of the church. There was no direct encounter between God and his chosen
\npeople, the Jews, prior to the coming of Christ and the Spirit to the followers
\nof Jesus.   <\/span>I would not want to deny that
\nthe church is one place where God reveals his truth through his Word, but it is
\nsurely not the only place, otherwise evangelistic preaching in a place where
\nthere is no church would be nothing more than words full of sound and fury but
\naccomplishing nothing.   <\/span>There is a
\nfurther problem with this argument of Watson’s as well.[10]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>  <\/span>The Bible does indeed have an inherent
\nauthority precisely because it tells the truth about the matters it discourses
\non.  <\/span>It does not merely have an authority
\nbecause in it we encounter the Life, the Lord about which it speaks, though of
\ncourse that is true as well. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Another
\ndifficulty with Watson’s whole approach has to do with making ‘texts’ prior to
\nalmost all else.  <\/span>Listen to what Watson
\nsays–“The Word made flesh is never encountered [never?] without textual
\nmediation, for Jesus is only recognized as such on the basis of a prior
\ntextuality.  <\/span>Jesus is initially
\nacknowledged as Christ and Lord because that which takes place in him is said
\nto take place ‘according to the scriptures’.”[11]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>While I quite agree that “the life of Jesus
\ndid not take place in a text-free vacuum”[12]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span> <\/span>it did take place in what was largely an oral
\nculture, not a culture of texts. 
\n<\/span>Furthermore, prior understanding of at least some of the Bible doesn’t
\nseem to have been a pre-requisite for grasping at least some of the meaning of
\nthe Christ event, or having an encounter with Jesus in the first generations of
\nChristians.  <\/span><\/p>\n

There were
\nundoubtedly some who encountered Jesus without prior knowledge of the Hebrew
\nScriptures, and some of them indeed became his supporters, his partisans, his
\nfollowers.  <\/span>One cannot well imagine the
\nGadarene demoniac as a student of the Hebrew Scriptures who understood Jesus on
\nthe basis of prior textual knowledge. To the contrary it was the encounter with
\nJesus that will have led various people into a proper relationship with the
\ntext of the Scriptures.  <\/span>There were both
\nmediated and unmediated encounters with Jesus, just as there have always been
\nboth mediated and textually unmediated encounters with the Holy Spirit and God
\nthe Father as well.  <\/span>It is one thing to
\nsay that Jesus, God the Father, and the Spirit cannot be fully understood
\nwithout an understanding of the Scriptures.  <\/span>It is quite another to suggest that the church
\nhas a monopoly on the truth, or the encounter with and grace of God, or that it
\ncan only happen in the context of Christian community, worship, and the sharing
\nof Christian texts.  <\/span>One can only wonder
\nwhat the Moslem ‘followers of Issah’ in various Moslem countries, who have
\nbecome such because of visions they have had of Jesus but who had previously
\nnever read the Bible nor been part of a church, would think about such
\nassertions.  <\/span>I am confident they would
\nfind something terribly wrong with such notions. <\/p>\n

On the other hand,
\nWatson is right that the text of both testaments, Old and New, are needful if
\none is to understand the full scope and meaning of the revelation of God in
\nJesus Christ. On this basis, Watson goes on to insist that “all Christian
\ntheology must be biblical theology”.[13]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>  <\/span>I would agree with this assertion if by it
\none means that NT theology is founded and grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures and
\nis dependent on them as a revelatory source in various ways.  <\/span>NT theology cannot stand alone, nor should
\nChristian interpreters become the followers of Marcion.  <\/span><\/p>\n

This fact however
\ndoes not make the Hebrew Scriptures in the first instance ‘the church’s book’,
\nnor does it mean that we may expect to find full blown Christian theology in
\nthe OT–for instance a doctrine of the Trinity, or a doctrine of salvation by
\ngrace through faith in Jesus.  <\/span>It is
\nprecisely the historical realities reflected in the OT which rule out such a
\ntheological approach.  <\/span>Christian theology
\nwhich draws on the OT cannot be done in some sort of a-historical or flat way
\nthat does not take into account the progressive revelation of God and the
\nfundamentally pre- or non-Christian character of the OT.  <\/span>The attempt to turn the OT into a Christian
\nallegory involves a failure to grasp the historical nettle, and at the end of
\nthe day is a bad example of historical anachronism.  <\/span>This does not mean that the OT cannot be used
\nin various Christian ways. It can. But that is more a matter of homilectical
\nuse and application than it is a matter of interpretation of the OT.<\/p>\n

The OT is
\nprimarily about the revelation of Yahweh, the one Christians call God the
\nFather, and only in a secondary sense, and by way of promise and prophecy, a revelation
\nof the Son and the Spirit.  <\/span>If the actual
\ntheological substance of the OT is taken into account, and not merely its
\ncontemporizing hermeneutical use by later Christians, then in fact it is
\npossible to say that what we have in the OT is truths that could equally well
\nbe affirmed by Jews, Christians, and Moslems and in fact they are affirmed by various such believers though the uses
\nthey make of these texts vary.  <\/span><\/i>The
\nfact that these OT truths may not be sufficient in themselves unto Christian
\nconversion or salvation is another matter. 
\n<\/span>Truth is no less true simply because it is, as the author of Hebrews 1.1
\nsuggested–‘partial and piecemeal’.  <\/span><\/p>\n

It is crucial to keep steadily in view both
\nthe historical givenness of the Biblical texts and their theological
\ncharacter.  <\/span>They always and everywhere
\nspeak about a God who reveals himself in space and time in various ways to
\nvarious persons, both saved and lost, both Jew and Gentile, both literate and
\nilliterate, both textually aware and oblivious to Biblical texts.  <\/span>Abraham did not encounter and follow God’s
\ndirectives on the basis of a prior understanding of Holy Writ mediated to him
\nthrough a community of faithful interpreters of the Genesis sagas. <\/i><\/p>\n

I quite agree with
\nWatson however that the Bible is irremediably theological in character.  <\/span>It is all about God, and God’s relationship
\nwith various human individuals and groups. The Bible’s history cannot be
\nreadily abstracted from its theologizing or vice versa. There is of course a
\ngood reason for this–God is committed to involvement in the messiness and
\ncontingencies of human history and always has been.  <\/span>Indeed, it should be said that God, as the
\ncreator of all things including all human beings, is the one who made history
\npossible, viable, having purpose and goal, and so on.  <\/span>Further, I agree with Watson that the
\nsegregation of Biblical studies from theological studies has led to the
\nimpoverishment of both fields.  <\/span>Exegetes
\nare working on inherently theological texts! 
\n<\/span>Biblical theologians require exegetical study to come to grips with the
\nsubjects of their own fields of interest and inquiry.  <\/span>Watson is right to complain about the rigid
\ndivisions of these fields in the guild. <\/p>\n

Watson urges a
\n‘dialectical’ interdependence between the OT and the NT, decrying the tendency
\nto see the OT as merely background for the NT. 
\n<\/span>He urges “the notion of a dialectical unity between the two bodies of
\nwriting, constituted as ‘old’ and ‘new’ by their relationship to the
\nfoundational event that they together enclose and attest, only makes sense from
\na theological standpoint.”[14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span><\/i>I
\nwould agree with this assertion in principle, but I would add that such an
\nassertion only makes sense from an historical viewpoint as well.  <\/span>After all, the terms ‘old’ and ‘new’ refer to
\ntime and space, and events that happen in time and space and objects that are
\ncreated in time and space, such as the various parts of the Bible. Watson later
\nrightly stresses that the Biblical texts are both theologically motivated but
\nalso genuinely historiographical in intent and character.[15]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span>Here is where I must insist however that
\nunless one does justice to both the historical and theological character of
\nthese texts, one will not be doing
\ntheology properly, nor doing history justice. <\/i> <\/span>What do I mean by this?   <\/span>For one thing I mean that the OT does not
\ncease to be Christian Scripture simply because it mostly tells us about God the
\nFather and his relationship with the universe, the world, a people.  <\/span>Patrology (the study of God the Father) in
\nthe more antique and theologically loaded sense of that term is just as much a
\npart of Christian theology as Christology is. The fact that with benefit of
\nhindsight and further revelation Christians came to view the Father through the
\nlens of the Son and the Spirit does not mean that we cannot appreciate what is
\ngoing on in the OT on its own terms, and furthermore recognize that the
\nChristian doctrine of God would be severely and seriously impoverished without what
\nthe OT has to say about that matter and many others.  <\/span>For example the holiness, justice, mercy and
\nindeed the love of God would be far less clear if we did not have the Hebrew
\nScriptures.<\/p>\n

Watson is calling
\nscholars to practice ‘biblical theology’. 
\n<\/span>He defines it as follows: “Biblical theology is biblical <\/i>that is, concerned with the whole Christian Bible; it is
\nmore than the sum of Old Testament theology and New Testament theology,
\nunderstood as separate disciplines. Biblical theology is theology, <\/i>where attempts are made to limit it to a purely
\ndescriptive capacity, it quickly becomes redundant and the expression passes
\nout of use.”[16]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span> <\/span>While I am in sympathy with the thrust of both
\nof these sentences some qualifications are needed.  <\/span>Firstly, while Biblical theology may be more
\nthan the sum of OT and NT theology, if it is truly ‘Biblical’ theology it
\ncannot be other <\/i>than OT and NT
\ntheology lest it cease to be Biblical in the proper sense.  <\/span>By this I mean that Biblical theology can
\nonly be constructed out of OT and NT theology and theological material.  <\/span>It has no other primary resource.  <\/span>And when it goes beyond what is said in the OT
\nand\/or NT it has to be ever so careful not to go against<\/i> what is said in those sources. <\/p>\n

I do not think
\nthat Biblical theology can or should be attempted without reliance on both OT
\nand NT theology, and on the work of those scholars who labored long in the
\nvineyard of OT or NT theology. This includes reliance on the work of various
\nnon-Christian scholars, and means indeed that the attempt to build or frame a
\nBiblical theology cannot be seen as a task which involves only reliance on or
\ndialogue with Christian interpreters.  <\/span>In
\nother words, a hermeneutical
\necclesiological apriori is a mistake when one is attempting to do a Biblical
\ntheology worth its salt, and open to all insights from whatever sources and scholars.<\/i>[17]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Secondly, I must
\ninsist that the proper order of things is that discovering and discerning the
\ncharacter of OT theology and NT theology on its own merits, must be seen as a
\nnecessarily prior enterprise to the constructing of a Biblical theology, not
\nleast because we have all seen what happens when the Bible is read through the
\ngrid of later Calvinist or Arminian or Lutheran, or Orthodox or Catholic
\nsystematic theology–namely the Biblical text is read anachronistically and is
\ngerry-mandered for various later theological purposes and battles about which
\nthe Biblical writers were innocent and ignorant.  <\/span>In short, distortion of the meaning of
\nBiblical texts happens over and over again as the attempt is made to make them
\nfit a pre-existing theological schema.  <\/span> <\/span>A good example of this is the rapture doctrine
\nwhich underpins Dispensational Theology, a doctrine the church had never heard
\nof or really believed in before the 19th<\/sup> century.[18]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

And then there is
\nthe further problem that when one begins talking about the ‘Christian Bible’,
\none must ask–which one?  <\/span>Would that be
\nthe Bible of the Orthodox or the Catholics or the Protestants?  <\/span>What counts as foundational texts, and are
\nany beyond the generally received sixty six books legitimate as sources for
\nBiblical theology?  <\/span>But when you ask
\nwhich Christian Bible you have asked not merely a theological question but a
\nhistorical one as well.  <\/span><\/p>\n

I personally, as a
\nNT scholar do not feel competent to do ‘Biblical theology’ and frankly know few
\npeople who are competent to do so, whether exegetes or theologians, for this
\nrequires a level of knowledge and expertise not only in the OT and NT but in
\nthe larger sphere of theology as well.  <\/span>I
\nsuspect that such a project would require a variety of OT and NT scholars and
\ntheologians working together. I do however feel competent to talk about the
\ninfluence of the OT on NT thought, on the use of the OT in the NT, on the
\ngrounding of much of NT thought in OT thought and the like, without ignoring
\nthe paradigm shift that comes as a result of the Christ event.   <\/span>From a hermeneutical point of view, since
\nChristians are not under the old covenant in any of its manifestations, how exactly
\nthe OT is the basis of Christian theologizing is a delicate question in various
\nregards, and it is not sufficient to say that the OT must simply be read
\nChristologically, though that is one of the tasks the NT writers themselves
\nundertake and encourage us to undertake. <\/p>\n

More helpful are
\nWatson’s trenchant criticisms of post-modern and reader response approaches to
\nthe Biblical text.  <\/span>He throws down the
\ngauntlet at the beginning of his essay on this subject stressing: “A Christian
\nfaith concerned to retain its own coherence cannot for a moment accept that the
\nbiblical texts (individually and as a whole) lack a single determinant meaning,
\nthat their meanings are created by their readers, or that theological
\ninterpretations [sic–surely he means interpreters] must see themselves as
\nnon-privileged participants in an open-ended, pluralistic conversation. Such a
\nhermeneutic assumes that these texts are like any other ‘classic’ texts:
\nself-contained artifacts, handed down to us through the somewhat haphazard
\nprocesses of tradition, bearing with them a cultural authority that has now
\nlost much of its normative force, yet challenging the interpreter to help
\nensure that they will at least remain readable, and continue to be read.”[19]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n

Watson is right to
\nassert that an author’s meaning is encoded into the words by which he conveys
\nit and we can know something of the author’s intention in saying such things by
\nstudying his words in their original contexts. Writings, perhaps particularly,
\ninspired writings, have the intention of communicating something of importance
\nto one or more recipients. Watson puts it this way: “When A speaks to B about
\nx, what B receives is not a communication about x that might have come from
\nanywhere…but a communication that is distinctively A’s communication. To
\nunderstand and to respond to the communication is therefore not only to
\nunderstand and respond to what is said about x but to understand and respond to
\nA. Communication is an irreducibly interpersonal
\n<\/i>event…”[20]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This is right on
\ntarget.  <\/span>If one properly understands a
\ntext then one has understood what the author intended to say and does say. The
\ntext cannot be severed from its original author, since it is an expression of
\nthe mind of that author, nor can or should it be assumed that the meaning of
\nthe text is to be generated by the receiver of the communication. “Verbal
\nmeaning is not so ephemeral…Readers can only receive meaning, they cannot create <\/i>it. <\/i>“[21]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span><\/span>  <\/span>Can there be a secondary significance to a
\ntext not originally intended by the author? 
\n<\/span>Well yes, that is possible, but as Watson goes on to stress “true ‘significance’
\nis to be found in the single, verbal
\nmeaning itself, <\/i>that is in its enduring…force. The notion of a secondary,
\nephemeral ‘contextual significance’ is therefore subordinate to the primary
\nuniversal significance this text claims by virtue of its role as ‘gospel’.[22]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>I would prefer to substitute the phrase ‘Word
\nof God’ here for the term Gospel. <\/p>\n

Equally helpful is
\nWatson stress that the Biblical author is concerned not merely that the
\naudience understand, but that they act. There is of course a distinction
\nbetween understanding a communication and choosing to respond appropriately to
\nit. “An adequate interpretation of the literal sense of a text will seek to
\nexplain not only what the author is saying<\/i>
\nbut also what he or she is doing<\/i>.”  <\/span>He reminds us that even with lack of clear understanding
\nof what an author or speaker is saying, we may still know what he wants,
\nprecisely because of the context. Watson gives the example of encountering a
\nborder guard speaking in a foreign language one does not know. One correctly
\nsurmises that the guard is performing a speech-act wanting the listener to
\nproduce his passport. The speech act is successful even though one has failed
\nto understand the meaning of most or all of the words, because the context made
\nclear what the speaker wanted.[23]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Watson goes on to
\nstress that normally speech-acts require a certain context if they are to
\nachieve their intended effect: “to make a promise or issue a command
\npresupposes a complex set of prior conditions and relationships.”[24]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>   <\/span>This is true, but only up to a point, or
\nelse a speech-act could never communicate successfully with a stranger or a
\nforeigner unaware of the author’s context, and not sharing his community.  <\/span>Evangelism would be impossible if one takes
\ntoo narrow a view of what pre-conditions are required for genuine
\ncommunication. <\/p>\n

Watson however is
\nquite right that the intention of the author should not be divided from the
\ntext of the author, as if intent lies only in the mind of the speaker or
\nwriter, and the words are something else. He rightly warns “It misunderstands
\nauthorial intention as a purely psychological event that precedes and
\nconstrains the words, exerting a continuing influence on the text from the
\noutside. Against this view, authorial intention is to be seen as primarily
\nembodied in the words the author wrote”[25]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>“Authorial intention is the principle of a
\ntext’s intelligibility, and cannot be detached from the text itself.  <\/span>The capacity of writing to extend the scope of
\na speech-act in space and time precludes an understanding of authorial
\nintention purely in terms of the author’s immediate historical context.”[26]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>  <\/span>But
\nit is not just the capacity of writing that does this, for we are dealing with
\nthe living Word of God, not just any kind of communication. We are dealing with
\nWords that God uses repeatedly to convey not merely his meaning but his
\npresence, his salvation, and many other things. Much of the discussion in this
\nparticular section prepares us for our next section which deals with the issue
\nof context.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

F. Original
\nContext Rules  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I tell my students
\nall the time that a text without a context is just a pre-text for what we want
\nit to mean, and thus the NT text must be read in its historical, rhetorical,
\nliterary, social, religious contexts. This is just as true of the theologizing and
\nethicizing of the NT writers as anything else.  
\n<\/span>Texts themselves<\/i> do not theologize or ethicize into various
\ncontexts, people do.  <\/span>We can talk about
\nthe theologizing or ethicizing of Paul or Peter, but we cannot talk about the
\ntheologizing or ethicizing of 1 Corinthians, for instance.  <\/span>Talk of the theology or ethics of this or
\nthat book is just one more attempt to abstract the theology from its human and
\npersonal and historical context so it can be manipulated, and this is a
\nmistake.  <\/span>The texts come from real human
\nbeings in real situations which through various forms of contextual study we
\nknow a good deal about. These texts do not have meaning, or at least their
\nmeaning cannot be fully understood, apart from a knowledge of these linguistic,
\ncultural, social, rhetorical, historical and religious contexts. <\/p>\n

For example, I
\nwill not understand what Jesus meant in Mk. 10.45 about being a ransom in place
\nof the many unless I understand something about processes of redemption out of
\nslavery and bondage in the first century, something about early Jewish thinking
\nabout death as a means of atonement, something about the echoes of Isaiah 53 in
\nthis verse, to present only a brief list of things needful for
\nunderstanding.  <\/span>Without reading texts in
\ntheir original historical contexts there is the ever present danger of
\nanachronism and distortion.  <\/span>In other
\nwords, Christian theologians need to care about history and its contexts,
\nbecause the NT is not composed of abstract philosophizing about Jesus or the
\nChrist event.  <\/span>They need to stop talking
\nabout the autonomy of texts altogether if the NT is their point of
\nreference.  <\/span>It is also not all that
\nhelpful to start by reading the NT in light of later philosophically grounded
\ntheological debates that resulted in the creeds of the third and fourth century
\nand later.  <\/span>Rather we must pay it
\nforward.  <\/span>The creeds should be read in
\nthe light of the NT and critiqued by the NT.  
\n<\/span>In fact, all later biblical, historical, systematic, or modern special
\ninterest theologies (e.g. post-colonial readings or radical feminist readings)
\nneed to be normed by and critically sifted in the light of what the New Testament
\nactually says and means, if we are interested in doing Christian theologizing
\nor ethicizing. <\/p>\n

  
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

G.  <\/span>The Intentional Fallacy of the Intentional
\nFallacy Theory<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

An equally
\negregious mistake often made today is talking about the ><\/span><\/span>intentional
\nfallacy=<\/span><\/span>.  <\/span>As my friend Philip Esler has recently
\nstressed in his ground-breaking work New Testament Theology: Communion and
\nCommunity<\/u>, [27]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beasley who were the
\nones who coined the phrase and wrote the original essay about ><\/span><\/span>the intentional fallacy=<\/span><\/span> (published in 1946) were talking about
\nonly one kind of literary textB<\/span><\/span>
\npoems!   <\/span>It is about poems that they said
\nA<\/span><\/span>the design or intention of the author
\nis neither available nor desirable as a standard of judging the success of a
\nwork of literary art@<\/span><\/span>.[28]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>In their view poems existed in a highly
\nunusual world of signification divorced from both intentionality and meaning.
\nWimsatt and Monroe go on to make the following important distinction A<\/span><\/span>In this respect poetry differs from
\npractical messages, which are successful if and only if we correctly infer the
\nintention.@<\/span><\/span>[29]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>In other words, since the NT is not simply a
\nbunch of poems, even the original authors of the ><\/span><\/span>intentional
\nfallacy=<\/span><\/span> idea
\nwould not see it as applicable to the New Testament![30]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span><\/p>\n

As Esler stresses,
\nwhat we have in the NT are very definitely practical messages which presuppose
\nhistorical authors and audiences that have a relationship, even in the case of
\nan anonymous document like Hebrews or 1 John (see e.g. Heb. 13).  <\/span>Therefore, it is important to interpret NT
\ntexts in light of all the available contextual evidence we have, and we must assume
\nthat these texts express some of the mind and intentions of their historical
\nauthors. <\/p>\n

We must also
\nassume that these texts were intended to have, and do have meanings.  <\/span>Meaning is encoded in the text, it is not
\nsomething the reader should feel free to construct for themselves, though of course
\nit is true that active readers do often read things into the text of the NT
\nthat simply isn=<\/span><\/span>t
\nthere.  <\/span>We would call that a bad reading
\nof the text.  <\/span>My theory of meaning is
\nderived from the work of people like E.D Hirsch and more recently Kevin Vanhoozer,
\nand as a historian I must say that their epistemology and theories of meaning
\nseem much close to that of the NT authors than modern scholars who are more
\nindebted to existentialist and nihilist philosophers than they are to the
\nBiblical sources when it comes to the matter of meaning.[31]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>Words have meaning in contexts, and the
\ncontext is not just literary in the case of the NT documents, it is the
\nrhetorical environment of oral discourse, declaration, proclamation,
\npersuasion.  <\/span>The more we know about how
\nwords worked in an oral culture, the better we will understand the theologizing
\nand ethicizing of the NT.  <\/span>                                <\/span><\/p>\n

I would also make
\na distinction between the meaning of a text and its larger significance for
\nlater readers.  <\/span>A text can have all sorts
\nof personal significances for various people that are not necessarily directly
\nderived from the original intended meaning of the text.  <\/span>For example, when our first child was about
\nto be born my wife and I were reading Ezekiel, in its latter chapters and we
\nheard about how God would multiply their kindred, keep them safe, and they
\nwould come home soon.  <\/span>Of course I knew
\nthat these were promises to exilic Israel
\nabout their return to the Holy Land, but God
\nused those words to speak to my wife and I, and sure enough our first child was
\nborn safely the next morning, and they came home from the hospital soon
\nthereafter. That=<\/span><\/span>s an
\napplication to a different audience in different circumstances, but the promise
\nwas just as significant <\/i>to us. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

H.  <\/span>Meaning vs. Significance and Relevance. Is
\nthere a Significant Difference?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In a seminal essay
\nwritten in the 1960s, my old Harvard professor Krister Stendahl made a
\ndistinction between what a text meant and what it means today.  <\/span>I am not entirely happy with this
\ndistinction.  <\/span>I would prefer to talk
\nabout the difference between what it meant and what it may signify for various
\npeople today.  <\/span>I prefer to say that what
\nit meant back then and there is still what the text means today.  <\/span>The meaning has not changed, though the
\nimplications, applications, significances do change as the world and its
\ncultures change.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Stendahl admits in
\nhis discussion that the reason for the distinction between what it meant and
\nwhat it means is because of distaste for and the attempt at distancing himself
\nfrom the original meaning or at least from the history of religions findings
\nabout the original meanings of these NT texts. What especially disturbed
\nscholars like Rudolph Bultmann, Karl Barth, and Oscar Cullmann was the
\ndisregard for both the theological substance of the NT documents and the
\ndiscounting of their relevance for current thinking, believing and
\nbehaving.  <\/span>It was in response to the
\nhistory of religions approach that what came to be called the biblical theology
\nmovement arose, but with a price.  <\/span>Stendahl
\nnotes: A<\/span><\/span>the
\nbiblical theologian becomes primarily concerned with the present meaning, he
\nimplicitly (Barth) or explicitly (Bultmann) loses his enthusiasm or ultimate
\nrespect for the descriptive task.@<\/span><\/span>[32]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>   <\/span>On the one hand this sort of assumption led
\na figure like Bultmann to insist on the demythologizing of the text and on the
\nother hand to look for a contemporary form of thinking, in this case
\nexistentialism, to serve as the new language through which to express theology
\nand interpret the NT.  <\/span>There were
\nproblems with both ends of this project. 
\n<\/span>Barth, for his part, took more of an a-historical approach to the
\ntheology of the NT, without endorsing existentialism as the vehicle that
\nprovides the hermeneutics or language of proper discourse.   <\/span><\/p>\n

Why is it
\nimportant to take the stand that what the text meant is still what it means
\ntoday?  <\/span>The answer is simple.  <\/span>If the NT is indeed the Word of God, then we
\nmust work especially hard to respect its historical givenness and incarnational
\nquality.  <\/span>We must do our homework and do
\nour best to understand the inspired words in their original form and
\nsettings.  <\/span>Put another way, these words
\nwere the Word of God for first century persons. 
\n<\/span>They had to make some sense to them as they originally addressed those
\naudiences.   <\/span>And they will make sense to
\nus the more we enter into their <\/i>thought
\nworld, the more we understand their<\/i>
\nforms of discourse.<\/p>\n

The negative
\ncorollary of this is that what these words could not possibly have meant in
\nthe first century<\/i>, they cannot mean today, even when it comes to prophetic
\nmaterial, as we shall see.  <\/span>A good
\nexample of the problem is shown by Augustine’s famous allegorizing of the
\nparable of the Good Samaritan, in which he argues that the Samaritan is Jesus,
\nthe oil and wine are the sacraments, the inn is the church, and the money is
\npenance money!  <\/span>It is safe to say that
\nJesus’ original audience could never have understood this parable to mean that,
\nand nor did Jesus himself.  <\/span>NT theology
\nis not properly done if it either discounts, or ignores, or downplays the
\nhistorical character and substance of the NT documents.  <\/span>As Stendahl puts it, we need a A<\/span><\/span>theology which retains history as a
\ntheologically charged category@<\/span><\/span>.[33]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span><\/p>\n

NT theology or
\nethics is also not properly done if we simply assume that our modern world view
\nand presuppositions are obviously better and more correct than that of the
\nauthors of the NT itself.  <\/span>Actually we
\nmost often see this latter assumption in play when it comes to NT ethics.  <\/span>For example, we will hear things like ><\/span><\/span>the NT writers accepted and even
\nendorsed slavery, which we know now is obviously wrong and therefore we cannot
\nsimply accept and apply the ethical imperatives of the NT today.=<\/span><\/span>  
\n<\/span>These sorts of judgments then give permission to take a ><\/span><\/span>pick and choose=<\/span><\/span> approach to both NT theology and NT
\nethics, and the basis of such choosing is usually certain unproven and
\nunexamined modern assumptions.   <\/span>There
\nare numerous problems with this whole approach.<\/p>\n

In the first
\nplace, it involves a failure to do one=<\/span><\/span>s
\nhistorical homework adequately.  <\/span>The NT
\nwriters no more endorse slavery than they endorse ancient patriarchy.  <\/span>Rather they must begin their discourse on such
\nsubjects where the audience de facto<\/i>
\nis and try to mold a more Christian approach to existing institutions. Close
\nexamination of what the NT says on both these subjects shows the NT writer
\nprodding and leading their audiences to question the Zeitgeist in regard to
\nthese issues and move beyond such fallen views and institutions.  <\/span>So, for instance, in Philemon, Philemon is
\nexhorted to treat Onesimus no longer as a slave but rather as one who is much
\nmore than a slave, as a brother in Christ. 
\n<\/span>Similarly in Ephesians 5, Paul offers, as a heading for his discussion
\nof submission, respect, and love in the family, an exhortation that all
\nChristians <\/i>should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephes.
\n5.21).  <\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, a
\nsuperficial reading of the historical evidence has led to the conclusion that
\nat least some of the NT evidence is morally and even theologically repugnant
\nand thus needs to be replaced by more modern ideas.  <\/span>I do not agree with this assumption, which
\ntakes as its premise ><\/span><\/span>we
\nknow better than they did what is theologically and ethically right=<\/span><\/span>. I don=<\/span><\/span>t
\nreally think that modern human beings, who allow atrocities like the Holocaust
\nin WWII or Darfur or other enormous ethical
\nlapses to happen, are in the position to lecture ancients about their ethics or
\ntheology.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

In the second
\nplace, we need to bear in mind that just because a remark is a word on target
\nfor a first century audience, and so historically and culturally conditioned,
\nit does not follow from this fact that it is historically and culturally
\nbound. <\/i>  <\/span>If there is one thing that
\nthe Bible has demonstrated over and over again, it is its ability to cross time
\nand cultural barriers and be a living Word of God in very different settings
\nand eras than the original ones.  <\/span>This is
\nnot because the Word has been or needs to be transformed <\/i>to suit <\/span>the different or later
\naudience and its predilections.  <\/span>It is so
\nbecause the living Word has simply been translated adequately and accurately
\nfor a different time and place, and applied in a culturally sensitive
\nmanner.   <\/span>The Word is eternally relevant
\nas it is, it does not need to be transformed into something it was not in the
\ndesperate quest for ><\/span><\/span>relevance=<\/span><\/span>, nor does it need to be ><\/span><\/span>made relevant=<\/span><\/span>
\nfor today.  <\/span>It is rather we who, and our
\ncultures that, need to be transformed in the image of the Word.  <\/span>It is however a necessary part of any good
\nChristian communication to be able to show<\/i> the meaning, importance, and
\nrelevance of the text of Scripture.  <\/span>A
\ngood motto to follow is that of Johannes BengelB<\/span><\/span>
\nA<\/span><\/span>Apply the whole of yourself to the
\ntext, apply the whole of the text to yourself.@<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I.  <\/span>NT Theology and Ethics, not Canonical or
\nBiblical Theology and Ethics<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The historical
\napproach taken here, unlike a canonical one or a ><\/span><\/span>biblical
\ntheology=<\/span><\/span>
\napproach, also leads to other important insights as well.  <\/span>Take for instance the use of God language (theos<\/b>)
\nin the NT.  <\/span>In all but seven places in
\nthe NT the term theos <\/b>refers to the one Jews knew as Yahweh and earliest
\nChristians called Father or Abba.   <\/span>In
\nthose other seven instances the term refers to Jesus, God=<\/span><\/span>s Son. 
\n<\/span>The term never refers to the Trinity in the NT, though I would argue
\n(and I will do so in Volume 2 of this study) that the raw materials of later
\nTrinitarian doctrine and the beginnings of Trinitarian thinking are already in
\nevidence in the NT itself.  <\/span>The idea of
\nGod who is tri-personal is beginning to be expressed in places like Matthew 28
\nbut this nodal idea was to be developed over time and after the time of the NT
\nwriters. <\/p>\n

We may talk about
\ntrajectories of ideas and understandings that are further developed beyond what
\nthe NT says in the succeeding centuries, but when this is done faithfully it is
\nconsonant with the earlier source material and moving in the same
\ndirection.  <\/span>But we do not find in the NT
\nitself the Chalcedonian formulae, or even the earlier Nicene Christology in
\ntoto  <\/span>for that matter, and in fact some
\nof the things said about God in those later formulae do not comport with some
\nof the things said in the NT itself about God (e.g. about the apparently
\nimpassable nature of God).   <\/span>Much less do
\nwe find later Reformation or Counter-Reformation theology in the NT. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

NT Theology like
\nNT ethics is not a completely finished product, if we evaluate it
\nanachronistically based on the later standards of creedal orthodoxy much less
\nconfessional orthodoxy or canon law or even modern notions of orthodox
\nChristianity of whatever stripe.  <\/span>We can
\ntalk about normative beliefs and ethical standards in the NT but we cannot talk
\nabout NT dogma.  <\/span>This is why I think a
\nhistorical approach to this material requires that we speak about the
\ntheologizing and ethicizing into particular contexts in the NT.  <\/span>All of this is by way of reminding the reader
\nthat you may well find what is said about NT theology and ethics in these
\nvolumes not answering all the pertinent questions you might have on the basis
\nof later standards and understandings of what Christian belief and behavior
\nought to look like.  <\/span>There is an apparent
\nincompleteness to the NT when it comes to our interests in things like
\nTrinitarian theology, or modern medical ethical discussions, though I would
\nurge that the NT has some valuable things to say that aid and should inform
\nthose discussions.  <\/span>Indeed I would say
\nthe NT provides us with the sort of theological and ethical vision out of which
\nwe can wisely address such issues.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

J. Genre
\nInterpretation not Generic Interpretation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A further
\nassumption with which I am operating is that understanding the genre of a
\nparticular NT document is a key to being able to understand its meaning. The
\ngenre conventions being followed in the NT are not modern but ancient ones.  <\/span>Matthew, Mark, and John reflect the
\nconventions of ancient biographies, whilst Luke-Acts reflects the conventions
\nof ancient Hellenistic historiography. There are in addition in the NT ancient
\nletters, sermons, rhetorical discourses, and apocalyptic prophecy, each of
\nwhich has its own genre signals and distinctives. It is quite impossible to
\nferret out the meaning of this or that text while ignoring the genre signals in
\nthese various documents.  <\/span>Such a
\nprocedure, which all too often happens when one takes a ><\/span><\/span>purely
\ntheological=<\/span><\/span> or a ><\/span><\/span>purely ethical=<\/span><\/span> approach to the NT data while ignoring
\nthe historical issues, leads to misunderstanding, and misinterpretation of
\nvarious sorts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

What we should
\ndeduce from this previous paragraph is that there is something fundamentally
\nwrong with an a-historical or even anti-historical approach to God=<\/span><\/span>s revelation in the pages of the New
\nTestament. A historical approach will recognize that we must take into account
\nthat the NT writers operated with a concept of progressive revelation.  <\/span>The OT could be interpreted typologically
\nwhile remaining historical in orientation, such that various persons and
\ninstitutions in the OT were seen as pointing forward to, or were types of
\nChrist.  <\/span>This mode of interpretation is
\nvery different from the later allegorical mode of interpretation popular in the
\nAlexandrian school which finds post-canonical and philosophical ideas in
\npre-Christian texts like the Song of Solomon (taken as an allegory of Christ
\nand the Church).  <\/span>Respecting the historical
\ngivenness of the OT means that while it is possible to talk about the
\npre-existent Christ as God=<\/span><\/span>s
\nWisdom at work in Israel (see 1 Cor. 10), this did not lead the NT writers to
\nassume they could find the Trinity under every rock in the OT.  <\/span>I assume that the best guide to the limits of
\nChristological interpretation of the OT, are the NT writers themselves.   <\/span>And basically the NT writers assume that
\nthere is a historical motion to the Biblical story, there is a before and
\nafter, and a process which leads to a climax in Christ.   <\/span><\/p>\n

This means that
\nthere was no full understanding of the Trinitarian nature of God in the OT
\nwriters, indeed there were many things they longed to understand and know about
\nthe future and, as 1 Pet. 1.10-12 says, God=<\/span><\/span>s
\nSpirit simply let them know they were speaking about a later time when they
\nspoke messianically.  <\/span>Heb. 1.1-2
\nespecially makes this sort of notion of progressive revelation clear.  <\/span>Revelation was partial and piecemeal in the
\npast but has become full and reaches a climax in Christ.   <\/span>I assume that we should follow the NT
\nwriters in this direction.  <\/span>This in part
\nmeans that the OT for a Christians becomes a book of foreshadowing,
\nforetelling, and of types in the light of the later revelation.  <\/span>It does not become a textbook for any sort of
\nfull<\/i> exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, or for that matter the
\ndoctrine of the Holy Spirit, or for that matter even Messianism.   <\/span>In Christian thinking the canon cannot be
\nread flatly without regard to the progression of revelation and historical
\nunderstanding of and in the text. What the OT can be <\/i>is a source for is
\nbetter understanding the first person of the Trinity and the divine character,
\nfor better understanding human fallenness, for better understand the history of
\nGod=<\/span><\/span>s people and God=<\/span><\/span>s
\nefforts to redeem them, for better understanding Israelite hopes about their
\nkings and coming kings and about their eschatological future, especially when
\nwe get to the exilic and post exilic prophetic and apocalyptic material in the
\nOT.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Even most Medieval
\nChurch Fathers were not totally willing to go beyond their famous Latin couplet
\nwhich read A<\/span><\/span>The New
\nis in the Old concealed. The Old is in the New revealed.@<\/span><\/span>.
\nThis couplet implicitly recognized that a flat reading of the OT as if it were
\nthe same sort of document, even a Christian document, as the NT is, is an
\nhistorical mistake. One had to take into account the progressive nature of God=<\/span><\/span>s revelation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It is worth adding
\nas well that we need to recognize that much of the use of the OT in the NT is
\nhomiletical in character.  <\/span>This should be
\nseen as a pastoral ><\/span><\/span>use=<\/span><\/span> of the text, and thus not be viewed as
\nserious exegesis of the text, for it does not change the meaning of the text,
\nnor does it give us permission to suggest all Biblical texts have a
\nmultiplicity of meansC<\/span><\/span>rather
\nlike ink blots into which we can read our own meanings.  <\/span>Put another way, these pastoral and
\nhomiletical uses of the OT are not trying to tell us what the text meant or
\nmeans so much as show us how it can be used for Christian purposes.  <\/span>They presuppose an already extant relatively
\nfixed sacred text accessible to their audience such that if they choose to do
\nsomething creative with the text this is not seen as supplanting but rather
\nonly supplementing the historical and contextual meaning of the text. <\/i> <\/span>This has nothing to do with their belief in
\nsome sort of sensus plenior or fuller sense to the text, a later concept in any
\ncase.  <\/span>Rather it reflects their belief
\nthat the text can be used and applied in various ways in their own Christian
\ncontext.  <\/span>To give but one example, Paul,
\nin 1 Cor. 9.9 quotes Deut. 25.4 about not muzzling oxen as they tread the
\ngrain, so they can get some personal benefit from their hard labor. He then
\napplies this to Gospel preachers like himself, knowing full well that that text
\nis not about<\/i> ministers of the Gospel
\nand their right to be remunerated or taken care of whilst doing the hard work
\nof ministry.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

K. NT Theology and
\nEthics and the Christian Bible<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As Jaroslav
\nPelikan makes perfectly clear, there was never a time when the Christian
\ncommunity combined the Hebrew OT with the Greek NT to make a single book.  <\/span>Rather, once it had agreed upon the shape of
\nits New Testament it adopted a version of the OT in Greek to serve as its
\nOT.  <\/span>This is perfectly clear from an
\nexamination of the early codexes like Codex Siniaticus.  <\/span>Christian Biblical Theology (as it was
\noriginally done when there was a book of two testaments), involved an all Greek
\ncanon, which of course is not at all the canonical basis of Biblical Theology
\ntoday which uses the Hebrew Scriptures along with the Greek NT.[34]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>   <\/span>The term Biblical Theology today would not
\nmean the same thing it did when there first was a ><\/span><\/span>complete=<\/span><\/span> Bible, and in any case that sort of
\napproach to Christian theology including NT theology threatens to undo, muffle,
\nor produce a false harmony or blending of the discreet witness of the Hebrew
\nScriptures which has its own Jewish voice, and the equally discreet NT
\nScriptures which has a largely Jewish Christian voice.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

We cannot start
\nwith Biblical theology and then try to fit NT theology into that Procrustean
\nbed.  <\/span>Nor can we start with the theology
\nin the Hebrew Scriptures and see the NT books as simply a renewal or extension
\nof that theology or those covenants mentioned in the OT.  <\/span>Historically this is not how the NT writers
\nviewed things, nor should we.  <\/span>We must
\nstart with the discrete testimonies of the individual testaments, and take our
\ncues from the NT writers as to how Christians should approach the Torah.  <\/span>This is an historical approach which sees
\nBiblical theology and Biblical ethics as something which must be done after<\/i>,
\nand on the basis of the detailed study of the theologies and ethics of the OT
\nand NT.  <\/span>NT theology, and for that matter
\nNT ethics, as it will be studied in these volumes will not involve a canonical
\napproach nor will it assume a Biblical theological or ethical approach as its
\nstarting point in the normal way those adjectives (canonical\/ Biblical) are
\nused in discussions today.  <\/span>Rather, we
\nwill allow the various NT writers to have their own say on their own terms in
\nthis volume and then we will try to see what a synthetic view of the
\ntheologizing and ethicizing of the various witnesses looks like in our  <\/span>second volume.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It seems clear
\nenough that the eschatological perspective shared by all the NT writers led
\nthem to conclude that they were living in the age of the new covenant, the
\nfinal covenant between God and humankind. 
\n<\/span>This eschatological perspective led them to the conclusion that former
\ncovenants were now, or were becoming obsolete, because the better and final one
\nhad appeared (see e.g. Galatians 4 or Hebrews).   <\/span>This did not mean that the OT became
\nirrelevant to Christian teaching or reflection (see 2 Tim. 3.16).  <\/span>But what it did mean is that the OT would now
\nbe viewed not so much on its own terms, but in the light of the Christ event
\nwhich came after it. <\/p>\n

 <\/span>It means that the OT would be used<\/i> messianically and ecclesiologically
\nin ways that would have made non-Christian early Jews uncomfortable and often
\nunconvinced.  <\/span>There would be a
\nhomiletical use of the OT which was often both more and other than simple
\nhistorical exegesis of the OT texts. 
\n<\/span>Indeed those uses fell more into the categories of application and
\nimplication than straightforward interpretation.  <\/span>Early Jews would see this hermeneutical move
\nas supercessionism, Christians would see it as completionism, to coin a
\nterm.  <\/span>The study of the use of the OT in
\nthe NT reflects the struggle in early Christianity for self-definition and
\nself-understanding in distinction from non-Christian Judaism but also in
\nrelationship with (and in some continuity with) early Judaism.[35]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span> <\/span> <\/span>Non-Christian Jews had their own, different
\ninterpretations of these same texts, and furthermore, there were various forms
\nof early Judaism taking a variety of views on these texts. There was no one
\nmonolithic early Jewish view or interpretation of such texts.<\/p>\n

Since the first
\nfive books of the NT are some sort of narrative, and since there is a narrative
\nstructure to the last book of the NT, and since there is a narrative
\nsubstructure to Pauline and Petrine and Johannine thinking in the NT as well as
\nin Hebrews and other books, it follows that narrative and story become an
\nespecially important category for analyzing the NT.  <\/span>This in turn raises the question of the
\nrelationship of history, narrative and story. 
\n<\/span>What sort of stories do we have in the NT?   <\/span>Are they fractured fairy tales or are they
\nhistorically substantive stories, or somewhere in between?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

L.  <\/span>History and Story in the New Testament<\/p>\n

In his recent
\ncrucial book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness
\nTestimony, <\/u>  <\/span>Richard Bauckham
\nstresses that what we have in the NT is a synthesis of history and story, more
\nparticularly the stories told by eyewitness participants in the events.  <\/span>The sort of history we are dealing with in
\nthe NT is oral history, later written down, and following the conventions of
\nancient oral history telling.  <\/span>As
\nBauckham also points out, for the ancients it was involvement in the pivotal events,
\nnot distance from them, that made them more likely accurate testifiers to what
\nactually happened and what it meant.  <\/span>The
\nA<\/span><\/span>ancient historians knew that firsthand
\ninsider testimony gave access to truth that could not be had otherwise.@<\/span><\/span>[36]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>We should envision then the oral testimonies
\nof the eyewitnesses coupled with the narrativizing and interpretative work of
\nthe NT writers.[37]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>   <\/span>In other words, not even the narratives in
\nthe NT should ever be treated as literary fictions, and certainly not as modern
\nliterary fictions or even ancient novels. 
\n<\/span>That would be to make genre mistakes of the first order in analyzing the
\nNT material.  <\/span><\/p>\n

As I have pointed
\nout at length in What Have They Done with Jesus? <\/u>[38]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>.<\/sup>
\nwhat we have in the NT is the testimonies of eyewitnesses, indeed testimonies
\nthat can be traced back either directly or indirectly to the inner circle of
\nJesus (which included women), some eight or so figures who were the impetus for
\nor the authors of what we find in the NT itself.  <\/span>In other words we should take it seriously
\nwhen even a non-eyewitness like Luke tells us that he has consulted the
\neyewitnesses and original teachers of the Word in writing his narrative. The
\ntheology and ethics in the NT are grounded in and founded on history and
\neyewitness testimony again and again. 
\n<\/span>Why anyone ever thought theology could be done for an historical
\nreligion like Christianity without paying attention to the historical detail
\nand eyewitness nature of the narratives is a mystery.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

M.  <\/span>The Christological Indicative and Imperative<\/p>\n

As should already
\nbe obvious, one of my major assumptions, which is really more like a settled
\nconviction, is that both the theology and ethics in and of the NT are
\nChristologically focused or centered.  <\/span>By
\nthis I mean that not only are the ethics connected to the theology such that
\nthe imperative is built on the indicative theological statements, but that both
\nthe ethics and the theology are profoundly grounded in Christ.   <\/span>Ethically this is so not just because we
\nhave a lot of Christ=<\/span><\/span>s
\nethical teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, but also because
\nthe ethics of Paul and Peter and others are profoundly shaped by the person and
\nexample of Christ, such that we even hear about imitating Christ. Put another
\nway, what most binds together the NT thought world whether we are talking about
\nbelief or behavior is Jesus Christ. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

To some this will
\nseem perfectly obvious, but in fact so many different attempts to examine NT
\ntheology or ethics do not primarily focus on Christology much less the teachings
\nand example of Jesus that sometimes it is necessary to state what may seem
\nobvious to many.  <\/span>It is Christ who is the
\nfocal point and crystalizing agent of the theologizing and ethicizing that
\nhappens in the NT.  <\/span>This is not only what
\nsets it apart from other forms of early Jewish thinking, it is what makes it
\nChristian in the proper sense of the term. 
\n<\/span>Attempts to do NT theology by starting with ideas like divine
\nsovereignty or eternal decrees or irresistible grace, or for that matter with
\nideas like prevenient grace or entire sanctification or the like are in fact
\nnot following the lead and emphases of the NT documents themselves.  <\/span>It is not primarily soteriology but
\nChristology which binds the NT together, for in some NT books we have little or
\nno reflection on salvation properly so called at all. The ordo salutis <\/b>(order of salvation) <\/b>is furthermore not only absent from significant portions of the
\nNew Testament, for example the Synoptic Gospels, it is absent as well from most
\nof the OT too. Those who insist otherwise are imposing later theological
\nreflection and categories of a systematic sort (and often of a particular brand
\nof soteriology) on the discussion.  <\/span><\/p>\n

It is the
\nChristological vision of the NT writers which caused a Christological
\nrevisioning of monotheism, of ethics, of eschatology, of salvation, of
\nhermeneutics, of OT prophecy and a host of other subjects.  <\/span>To take but one example–the language of
\nsalvation in the OT almost always refers to rescue, or a return to normality,
\nor a regaining of health, which is to say, to very mundane things.  <\/span>It does not refer to salvation in the
\nChristian spiritual sense of conversion to a new set of beliefs and
\nbehaviors.  <\/span>By contrast, most of the
\nlanguage of salvation in the NT at least alludes to the issue of conversion to
\nChrist, or subsequent sanctification in Him and his community. <\/p>\n

It is not helpful
\nat the end of day to arrange NT proof texts into pre-existent systematic
\ntheology categories and then construct a NT theology or ethics, or analyze NT
\ntheology or ethics on that basis.  <\/span>This
\nputs the ><\/span><\/span>dog=<\/span><\/span> back in dogma and that dog won=<\/span><\/span>t hunt if we are talking about being
\nfair to the focus and thrusts of the NT itself which are Christocentric and
\nChristological to the core.     <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

N. Historical
\nJesus vs. Christ of Faith?<\/p>\n

When my book The
\nChristology of Jesus<\/u> first came out at the beginning of the 90s a panel
\ndiscussion of the book was undertaken at the SBL.  <\/span>To some scholars it was seen as humorous to
\ntalk about Jesus viewing himself in a messianic light. Nevertheless I persisted
\nand the book has served as a stimulus in the discussion of Jesus=<\/span><\/span> self-understanding.  <\/span>I remember one angry person coming up after
\nthe panel discussion at the SBL and accosting me with the wordsB<\/span><\/span> A<\/span><\/span>You=<\/span><\/span>re just a theologian, not a historian,
\nwhy not just admit it?  <\/span>You=<\/span><\/span>re not talking about the historical
\nJesus, you are talking about the later Christian evaluation of Jesus.@<\/span><\/span>  
\n<\/span>If only history and theology were that easily separated and
\ndistinguished!  <\/span> <\/span>But in fact theology and history were intertwined
\nnot just in the lives of Jesus=<\/span><\/span>
\nfollowers but also in the life of Jesus himself.  <\/span>He had theological views, including theological
\nviews of himself.  <\/span>It does not require an
\nintellectual or historical slight of hand to come to this historical conclusion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

As for the larger
\nquestion as to whether Jesus=<\/span><\/span>s
\nown teaching should be included in a ><\/span><\/span>NT
\nTheology and Ethics=<\/span><\/span> study or
\nvolume, this is a much controverted question, which needs a little more
\nintroduction at this point.  <\/span>Jesus, of
\ncourse, was a Jew, not a Christian, even though I am convinced one can surely
\nsay he had a messianic self understanding.  
\n<\/span>If, with Wayne Meeks, we say that Christ is the question that prompts NT
\ntheologizing rather than the answer to all theological questions, and<\/i> you assume there are many layers of
\ntradition one has to peel away to get back to the historical Jesus, and<\/i> having done that you arrive at a
\nJesus that is rather different than the NT writers envisioned, then the answer
\nwill probably be no, at least when it comes to the actual teaching and ministry
\nof Jesus.[39]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>   <\/span>But in fact not only Joachim Jeremias but
\nsome very well known NT scholars have also included the teaching of Jesus in a
\nvolume on NT theology and\/or ethicsB<\/span><\/span>
\nL. Goppelt, W.G. K\u00fcmmel, G.B. Caird, P. Stuhlmacher, and N.T. Wright to name
\nbut a few.   <\/span>Clearly they did not see NT
\nTheology as simply a matter of the theological interpretation of the NT
\ndocuments, which of course can be done with any of those documents.  <\/span>The issue for them was the theology in<\/i>
\nthose NT documents, and whether Jesus=<\/span><\/span>
\ntheological and ethical remarks and activities should be included as part of
\nthe discussion. At the heart of the discussion is whether one takes a
\nhistorical and exegetical approach to this NT material, or whether one primarily
\nsees theology as an exercise in dealing with abstract ideas and concepts comparing
\nand contrasting them, and stringing them together in particular ways
\n(justification leads to sanctification which leads to glorification). <\/p>\n

In a recent essay
\nby Christopher Tuckett, this question of whether the historical Jesus=<\/span><\/span>s teaching and ministry belongs in a
\ndiscussion of NT theology is assessed afresh.[40]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>He points to the work of William Wrede and
\nRobert Morgan, the latter being indebted to the former, where a distinction is
\nmade between a historically descriptive approach of the data and a ><\/span><\/span>committed=<\/span><\/span>
\ntheological interpretation to the data. 
\n<\/span>This is sometimes described as a history of religion approach versus a
\nconfessional approach to the data.  <\/span>Is
\ndoing a NT theology then really just a matter of a committed Christian
\ntheologian, operating from that standpoint, offering an interpretation of the
\nNT data?  <\/span>If that is what it is, then of
\ncourse it is an in house matter, and non-Christian interpreters need not apply
\nfor the job of interpreting the NT in this way. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I must say that
\nthis claim bothers me as a historian. While every interpreter of the NT has a
\npoint of view of course, and that point of view needs to be taken account of, I
\ndo not think we should assume that non-Christian scholars or others are
\nincapable of assessing even the theological data within the NT, and doing it
\naccurately.  <\/span>I do not think we should
\nassume, for example, that a scholar like Prof. A.J. Levine, my good friend and
\ncolleague in NT studies at Vanderbilt, who is a committed Jew, is incapable of
\nproducing a fine volume on NT theology.  <\/span>And
\nthis is because it is not primarily about her point of view<\/i>; it is primarily
\nabout critically and correctly assessing the theological or ethical evidence
\nwithin the NT.  <\/span>You don=<\/span><\/span>t have to be a Christian to do
\nthat.  <\/span>So, I must reject the definition
\nwhich suggests that doing or studying or writing about NT theology is a task
\nonly for a committed Christian theologian. Just as I don=<\/span><\/span>t
\nsee the historical Jesus as a threat or a problem for NT theology, nor do I see
\nnon-Christian scholars as a threat or a problem if they seek to understand and
\nwrite about the NT theological and ethical data. In fact, we have much to learn
\nfrom them.  <\/span>                                          <\/span><\/p>\n

Of course one of
\nthe real problems with excluding the words, deeds and ministry of Jesus from a
\ndiscussion of NT theology and ethics is that Jesus=<\/span><\/span>s
\nown life and teachings are sometimes quoted, often alluded to, and the life
\npattern of the historical Jesus often seen as a paradigm for Christians to
\nfollow by the NT writers themselves<\/i>. And how exactly are we to conceive
\nof the function of the four canonical Gospels if they were not intended to
\nteach Christians how to think theologically and ethically as at least part of
\ntheir function?  <\/span>Apparently, the
\nEvangelists assumed Jesus=<\/span><\/span>
\nlife and teachings were fundamental resources for Christian theologizing and
\nethicizing in their communities.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Tuckett wants to
\nmake the very limited claim that the voice and teachings and life of Jesus
\nbelong as part of the conversation about NT theology and ethics and that the
\nhistorical Jesus and his ministry and teaching can act as something of a norm
\nas we seek to make theological value judgments about the NT data.  <\/span>Just how limited a claim he wants to make can
\nbe shown by the following quote: <\/p>\n

[O]ne cannot equate Christology
\nwith Jesus=<\/span><\/span> own
\nteaching; one cannot substitute the historically reconstructed Jesus for
\nChristian claims about Jesus. Indeed, it can be argued that, in some respects,
\na Jesus who is too continuous with later Christian theology could in fact be no
\nlonger suitable as the focus figure for that theology. A Jesus who had already
\nformulated some ideas about the positive meaning of the cross, who knew already
\nprior to his death that that death would surely be reversed by ><\/span><\/span>resurrection=<\/span><\/span>
\nand who perhaps claimed a uniqueness over and beyond that of any ><\/span><\/span>normal=<\/span><\/span>
\nmortal, would be a Jesus for whom the agony of Gethsemane and the cry of
\ndereliction on the cross would be a sham; it would be a Jesus whom no Christian
\ncould claim plumbed the deepest depths if human despair and godlessness…and
\nwho could then be the agent who brought about ><\/span><\/span>reconciliation=<\/span><\/span> or ><\/span><\/span>redemption=<\/span><\/span>…in the most profound sense claimed
\nby Christian theology.[41]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

My response to
\nthis assessment must be mixed. While Tuckett is right that we cannot simply
\nequate the messianic thinking and expression of Jesus about himself with the
\nlater full orbed Christology of the NT writers we do need to think that the
\nformer prepared for and provided some of the substance for the latter.  <\/span>In other words we must think of a developing
\ncontinuum, not a dichotomy as if the Easter event somehow cut the followers off
\nfrom the historical Jesus and his teachings and ministry. To say these things
\nmanifest some continuity is not to suggest that we could simply equate the
\nteaching of the historical Jesus with the later teaching about Jesus in some
\nsort of identity statement. <\/p>\n

Of course it is
\ntrue that later rumination on Jesus led to insights and the understanding of
\nthe truths about Jesus which in various cases Jesus never spoke to or of during
\nhis ministry. For example, Jesus never says anything directly about the
\nvirginal conception, though he does insist that the heavenly Father is his
\nfather at numerous junctures. Or again the historical Jesus never says A<\/span><\/span>one must confess that Jesus Christ is
\nthe risen Lord, and by this means you can be saved@<\/span><\/span>.  <\/span>There are of course aspects of later
\ntheologizing about Jesus which do not find an analogue in the things we know
\nthe historical Jesus actually said. 
\n<\/span>However, I would strongly disagree with Tuckett=<\/span><\/span>s
\nremarks in regard to whether Jesus made some positive remarks about the cross
\nand about vindication beyond death in advance of his death. It is very likely
\nhe did do this, and this is not a surprise since before him some of the
\nMaccabean martyrs also said remarkable things about the atoning merit of their
\ncoming deaths, and how God would at least vindicate their cause (and themselves
\nat the last resurrection presumably).  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I would also
\nsuggest that the historical  <\/span>Jesus
\nabsolutely did claim some sort of uniqueness that placed him in a category well
\nbeyond an average or ordinary or normal mortal, while still remaining fully
\nhuman.  <\/span>Indeed, it is likely that this is
\none of the things that got him killed, as a result of what he said before Pilate
\nand probably before the Sanhedrin too. 
\n<\/span>We will say more about this in the next chapter.  <\/span>Here it must suffice to say thisB<\/span><\/span> the historical Jesus and his teaching
\nmust be seen as part of the proper subject matter of a study of NT theology and
\nethics, and not just because it is the stimulus for later post-Easter Christian
\nthought and expression. At the same time, one must view these matters from a
\nhistorical point of view recognizing similarity, and also development and
\ndifference between the ways Jesus expressed himself and the ways later
\nChristians spoke about him. My point would simply be that a proper way to view
\nthis is as a matter of addition, not subtraction, and certainly not substitution,
\nsuch that the historical Jesus is replaced by the Christ of faith. Later NT Christological
\nreflection about Jesus went beyond what he said and did but it did not go
\nagainst it, nor did it distort the cut and thrust of what Jesus said and how he
\npresented himself.<\/p>\n

In his recent
\nstudy entitled Christ is the Question<\/u>, Wayne A. Meeks makes the
\nfollowing perceptive observation: A<\/span><\/span>the
\nway the Bible is used in theology depends on the way the reader construes the
\nBibleB<\/span><\/span> that is,
\nwhat one takes the Bible essentially to be.@<\/span><\/span>[42]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>This is exactly right.  <\/span>The Bible is not the tale of the evolution of
\nabstract ideas like ><\/span><\/span>atonement=<\/span><\/span> or ><\/span><\/span>the
\nTrinity=<\/span><\/span>.  <\/span>It is rather a disparate collection of
\nvarious sorts and genre of documents whose aims are historical, theological, and
\nethical, not to mention cultic or religious, whose meaning is effected or
\ndetermined by the genre of the material it is found in, and whose function is
\nconstantly related to: 1) a living faith community with an ongoing historical
\nexistence, including a community that has experienced what can be called
\nsalvation history; and 2) as a result of 1) has told their stories about this
\nlife and these events in the form of various narratives. Not all the Bible is
\nnarrative in its literary form, by any means, but all the Bible, even its rules
\nand laws, are related to theological concepts like covenants, and thereby to
\nlarger narratives about the interactions between God and his people, and indeed
\nwith the world. <\/p>\n

   
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

O. Sacrifice of
\nthe Intellect?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/span>Sometimes I am asked the question as to
\nwhether it requires the sacrifice of the intellect to believe what the Bible
\nsays about one or another subject.  <\/span>My
\nresponse is that one does not need to have a frontal lobotomy either to believe
\nwhat the NT says or to attempt to practice what it calls us to do.  <\/span>In fact it requires not the sacrifice of the
\nintellect but rather the sanctification<\/i>
\nof the intellect, the renewal of the mind discussed in Rom. 12.1-2 if one is to
\nunderstand much less apply this material. 
\n<\/span>One needs to use the full extent of one=<\/span><\/span>s
\nintellectual capacity to grasp some of this material. Spiritual things are
\nspiritually understood, especially when one is talking about some of the more
\nprofound aspects of theology or ethics found in the NT.   <\/span>One thing I am sure of as we begin this
\nforay through the NT witnesses looking at theologizing and ethicizing– Jesus
\nhimself made an indelible impression on his followers.   <\/span>This is one reason why these volumes are
\ncalled The Indelible Image<\/u>. I believe that we will understand the NT to
\nthe extent that we understand Jesus, and vice versa.  <\/span>These two things are inevitably and
\ninextricably intertwined, as is history and theology and ethics.  <\/span>We should not be surprised at this fact.  <\/span>If God indeed incarnated himself in the person
\nof Jesus then obviously theology and history have become one in a very real and
\npersonal sense.   <\/span>We must keep all these
\nthings in mind as we begin our theological and ethical pilgrimage through the
\nNT.<\/p>\n

In order to make
\nthis volume as readable as possible and take the ><\/span><\/span>stuffings=<\/span><\/span> out of usually stuffy theological and
\nethical discussions, I have kept the footnotes to a minimum and I have eschewed
\nusing a lot of technical jargon, though some is unavoidable. Since this work is
\nbased on my commentaries, the reader who wants lots more references and
\nbibliography and esoterica can turn to those commentaries for the details.  <\/span>These volumes are based on my previous twenty
\nfive years of exegeting the NT, they do not simply repeat what is in those volumes,
\nthough a good deal of overlap is inevitable since in assessing and presenting
\nthe theology and ethics of the NT witnesses we are dealing with exegetical
\nissues.  <\/span><\/p>\n

One last
\nthing.  <\/span>You need to use your imagination
\nwhile reading this volume. So consider the following before you turn to the
\nfirst full chapter. Think for a minute of the image of a small choir rehearsing
\nfor a big performance of a Masterwork. 
\n<\/span>Each one must know her own individual part well, and each one must also
\nbe able to sing in tune, and in harmony with the other singers. One of the
\nreasons to be especially diligent is because the Creator of this music is going
\nto perform with the choir as the chief soloist on this night.  <\/span>And of course all of the choir is excited and
\nwants to please the composer turned performer. This is all the more so since
\nthe piece in question is the musical biography of the soloist himself-B<\/span><\/span> the most famous solist in all the
\nworld.   <\/span>They will do their best to
\nrepresent the soloist well and blend in with his interpretation of his own
\nmusic.  <\/span>They want him of course to be the
\ndominant voice, and they are present to help highlight his voice and music. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

This little
\nallegory encapsulates how I view both the New Testament witnesses and the
\nrelationship of Jesus to them.  <\/span>In this volume
\nof this study we will only be hearing each of the individual ><\/span><\/span>singers=<\/span><\/span>
\nrehearse their individual part in the larger masterwork which we call NT
\nTheology and Ethics.  <\/span>There are a nice
\nvariety of individual voices, but already here at the outset we get to hear
\nfrom the Composer himself, the one who inspired all these other voices to sing
\nin their various ways.  <\/span>His voice is the
\ndominant voice, and others will be playing off that voice and trying to
\nharmonize with it.  <\/span>It is thus incumbent
\non us to let the soloist get in the first wordB<\/span><\/span>–
\nafter all the score is his, and the libretto is about him as well!   <\/span>So in our first full chapter we must turn to
\nJesus himself.<\/p>\n

  
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Types of Christian Theology<\/span><\/u>, (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1992), p. 56 cf.p. 90.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Christ is the Question,<\/span><\/u> (Louisville:
\nWestminster\/J. Knox Press, 2006), p. 140.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a> The Subtitle is A New Way of Doing Theology<\/u>, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
\n2005).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nHere I would distinguish my view from that of Francis Watson who repeatedly
\nrefers to Jesus Christ as the center of Scripture, drawing on the thought of
\nKarl Barth.  <\/span>See F. Watson, Text and
\nTruth. Redefining Biblical Theoloogy<\/u>, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), see
\npp. 95-126 for example. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>By which I am
\nimplying that the angel of the Lord is not the pre-incarnate Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nFor a detailed study of the formation of the NT canon see both Witherington, The
\nGospel Code,<\/u> (IVP, 2003) and now Witherington, The Shifting of the
\nParadigms<\/u>, (Baylor, 2009). <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>See Witherington, The Living Word of God<\/u> (Waco: Baylor Press, 2007),<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>See Philip Esler, New Testament Theology<\/u>, (Minn.: Fortress, 2005),
\npp. 20-30.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nFrancis Watson, Text and Truth. Redefining Biblical Theology<\/u>, (Grand
\nRapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 1.  <\/span>Emphasis
\nadded.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nThe Living Word of God, <\/u>Baylor Press, 2007.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 1.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 2.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 2.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 5.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[15]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 10. He is referring here to the Gospels but the same point could be
\nmade about any and all Biblical narratives that are historical in substance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[16]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 8.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[17]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nHere I am thinking of the sort of moves made by L.T. Johnson in The Real
\nJesus, <\/u>(San Francisco: Harper One, 1997).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[18]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nSee my The Problem with Evangelical Theology<\/u>. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[19]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, Text and Truth<\/u>, p. 97.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[20]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson p. 102.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[21]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 104.  <\/span>Or at least, they ought
\nnot to be trying to re-create the meaning.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[22]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 106.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[23]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 116. I appreciate this example having had this very experience on
\nthe border between Estonia
\nand Russia
\nonce, where the speaker spoke in Russian, and I did not know what she said, but
\ndid know what she wanted, and the intent or purpose of the speech-act was clear
\nin regard to how I ought to respond.  <\/span>But
\nthen she handed me an arrival card in Cyrillic I was expected to fill out.  <\/span>At that juncture I had to guess what was
\nwanted in various slots. The card, was a less clear communicator than the
\nspeaker. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[24]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 117.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[25]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 118.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[26]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWatson, p. 123.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[27]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a> Minneapolis:
\nFortress Press, 2005<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[28]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Quoted by Esler,
\nNT<\/u> Theology<\/u>, p. 92.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[29]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>In Esler, p. 93.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[30]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>I must add, as one who is a poet, that I don<\/span>=<\/span><\/span>t even think this definition works well with all kinds
\nof poetry. It certainly doesn<\/span>=<\/span><\/span>t work with mine.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[31]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>See the work of E.D. Hirsch, Validity in
\nInterpretation<\/u>, (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1967), and his The Aims of
\nInterpretation, (Chicago: U. Of Chicago Press, 1976), and his <\/span>A<\/span><\/span>Meaning and Significance Reinterpreted,<\/span>@<\/span><\/span> Critical Inquiry 11 (1984), pp. 202-24. Kevin
\nVanHoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text? <\/u>(Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
\n1998).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[32]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Krister Stendahl, <\/span>A<\/span><\/span>Biblical
\nTheology, Contemporary,<\/span>@<\/span><\/span> Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Vol<\/u>. 1
\n(Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), pp. 418-32, here p.421.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[33]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Stendahl, p.428.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[34]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>J. Pelikan, Whose Bible is It? <\/u>(N.Y.: Viking,
\n2005), pp. 101-02.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[35]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nSee now the enormously detailed work edited by G. Beale and D.A. Carson, Commentary
\non the New Testament Use of the Old Testament<\/u>, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[36]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Bauckham, 
\n<\/span>Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, <\/u>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
\n2006), p. 11.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[37]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Here Bauckham is following the lead of S. Byrskog,
\nStory as History–History as Story <\/u>(Tubingen:
\nMohr, 2000). <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[38]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>(San
\nFrancisco: Harper Collins, 2006).<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[39]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>
\nWayne A. Meeks, Christ is the Question,<\/u> (Louisville: Westminster\/J.
\nKnox, 2006), p. 21: <\/span>A<\/span><\/span>even if historians cannot produce a reliable biography
\nof the real Jesus, we can describe the process by which Jesus became that
\npersonage who made history<\/i>. Understanding that process<\/span> may be more important for us, even more<\/span> interesting than constructing another <\/span>><\/span><\/span>historical<\/span>=<\/span><\/span> Jesus.<\/span>@<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[40]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Christopher Tuckett, <\/span>A<\/span><\/span>Does the
\nHistorical Jesus belong within a New Testament Theology?<\/span>@<\/span><\/span> in The Nature of New Testament Theology<\/u>, pp.
\n231-47.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[41]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>Tuckett, pp. 242-43.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[42]<\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/sup><\/span><\/a>W.A Meeks, Christ is the Question,<\/u> (Louisville:
\nWestminster\/J. Knox Press, 2006), p. 116.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just released this month is the first volume of my two volume study of the theology and ethics of the NT.  Here as a sample is some of the Prologue to this volume that deals with important presuppositional and prolegomena issues.   See what you think.   BW3 PROLOGUE: BLUE PRINTS AND BY LAWS ALet us assume…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Indelible Image- Prologue to NT Theology and Ethics - The Bible and Culture<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Indelible Image- Prologue to NT Theology and Ethics - The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Just released this month is the first volume of my two volume study of the theology and ethics of the NT.  Here as a sample is some of the Prologue to this volume that deals with important presuppositional and prolegomena issues.   See what you think.   BW3 PROLOGUE: BLUE PRINTS AND BY LAWS ALet us assume…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-25T14:49:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/09\/Indelible_Image_1%5B1%5D-thumb-446x666-7984.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ben Witherington\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Indelible Image- Prologue to NT Theology and Ethics - The Bible and Culture","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Indelible Image- Prologue to NT Theology and Ethics - The Bible and Culture","og_description":"Just released this month is the first volume of my two volume study of the theology and ethics of the NT.  Here as a sample is some of the Prologue to this volume that deals with important presuppositional and prolegomena issues.   See what you think.   BW3 PROLOGUE: BLUE PRINTS AND BY LAWS ALet us assume…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html","og_site_name":"The Bible and Culture","article_published_time":"2009-09-25T14:49:11+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/09\/Indelible_Image_1%5B1%5D-thumb-446x666-7984.jpg"}],"author":"Ben Witherington","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html","name":"The Indelible Image- Prologue to NT Theology and Ethics - The Bible and Culture","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/09\/Indelible_Image_1%5B1%5D-thumb-446x666-7984.jpg","datePublished":"2009-09-25T14:49:11+00:00","dateModified":"2009-09-25T14:49:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/09\/Indelible_Image_1%5B1%5D-thumb-446x666-7984.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/09\/Indelible_Image_1%5B1%5D-thumb-446x666-7984.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/09\/the-indelible-image-prologue-to-nt-theology-and-ethics.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Indelible Image– Prologue to NT Theology and Ethics"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/","name":"The Bible and Culture","description":"All Things Biblical and Christian","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426","name":"Ben Witherington","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","caption":"Ben Witherington"},"description":"Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies. Witherington has also taught at Ashland Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt University, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell. A popular lecturer, Witherington has presented seminars for churches, colleges and biblical meetings not only in the United States but also in England, Estonia, Russia, Europe, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia. He has also led tours to Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Witherington has written over thirty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Beliefnet website. Along with many interviews on radio networks across the country, Witherington has been seen on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Discovery Channel, A&E, and the PAX Network.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/author\/bwitherington"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/874","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/874\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}