{"id":6371,"date":"2010-06-02T05:40:55","date_gmt":"2010-06-02T05:40:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html"},"modified":"2010-06-02T05:40:55","modified_gmt":"2010-06-02T05:40:55","slug":"deliverance-of-god-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html","title":{"rendered":"Deliverance of God 1 (Matt Edwards)"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is an incredible series being offered to us by Matt Edwards: a nine part summary and response to Douglas Campbell’s mega-book, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul<\/a>\"\"
\n<\/strong><\/em>. Thanks to Matt Edwards.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

The Deliverance of God<\/span><\/i><\/b> 1–Summary and Plan for Review<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

In The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul<\/i>, Douglas Campbell emphatically rejects traditional Justification Theory (JT) in favor of an apocalyptic rereading of Romans 1-4, in which <\/a>dikaiosune <\/i><\/span><\/a>theou<\/i> (traditionally, “the righteousness of God”) is “the deliverance of God,” or “God’s saving action.” According to Campbell, Paul’s message in Romans 1-4 is that in the death and resurrection of Jesus, God is revealed as the savior of all humanity from the powers of Sin and Death. Central to Campbell’s thesis is a contrast between Paul’s own “participationist” theology found in Romans 5-8 and that of a Jewish-Christian teacher, whose ideas Paul quotes and rejects in Romans 1-4. Campbell identifies no less than fifty-six (!) problems with JT and the traditional reading of Romans 1-4, and argues that his rereading solves all of them without creating new ones. While Campbell’s critique of JT is weighty, his summary of Pauline research is superb, and his exegesis is careful, creative, and profound, he fails to deliver a plausible rereading of the relevant texts. Even so, the unconvinced will have to address his powerful critique.<\/p>\n

The Deliverance of God<\/i> is divided into five parts, the first dealing with JT and its implications. Before defining JT, he explains what generated his interest in the study–the apparent contradictions between the theology of Romans 1-4 and that of Romans 5-8. Romans 1-4 advocates a forensic understanding of salvation, with humanity’s offense of God’s justice being the “problem,” the substitutionary atonement of Jesus being the “solution,” and faith being the means of appropriation. Romans 5-8, on the other hand, advocates a “participationist” understanding of salvation, with humanity’s enslavement to Sin and Death being the “problem,” Christ’s victorious death and resurrection being the “solution,” and union with Christ being the (universal) means of appropriation. Traditionally, Protestant scholars have prioritized Romans 1-4 and relegated 5-8 to “sanctification” (a secondary and superfluous part of salvation). Campbell rejects this artificial distinction, noting the prevalence of participationist theology in the rest of Paul. But, if Romans 5-8 is Paul’s Gospel, what do we do with Romans 1-4? Enter The Deliverance of God<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n<\/p>\n

In chapter one, Campbell describes
\nthe JT that he will be critiquing throughout the book. JT has two phases–“the
\nrigorous contract” (in which God’s ethical demands are made clear to all
\npeople, all people are found to have fallen short of these demands, and all
\npeople are declared worthy of God’s retributive justice) and “the appropriation
\nof salvation” (in which God, in his grace, offers a more manageable criterion
\nfor salvation, “faith”). Between these two phases lies eschatological judgment
\nbased on merit and Christ’s death on the cross for sins. JT can vary with
\nregard to the nature of humanity’s incapacity, the intensity of God’s demands,
\nthe nature of the atonement, and the meaning of “faith,” but the basic storyline
\nis that God is a God of retributive justice, He has ethical demands that
\nhumanity has not met, Jesus has atoned for sins, and salvation is appropriated
\nonly by “faith.” Inherent to the model is the idea that humans negotiate phase
\none (realizing from nature that they are a sinner and “without excuse,” Rom
\n1:20) before they can negotiate phase two (appropriating salvation through
\nfaith).<\/p>\n

In chapters 2-5, Campbell describes
\nseven intrinsic difficulties, ten systematic difficulties, and four empirical difficulties
\nwith JT. The difficulties vary in significance, but the cumulative effect is crippling.
\n(I will explain some of these problems in subsequent posts!) In chapter six,
\nCampbell surveys the major problems and concerns within Pauline theology, and shows
\nthat almost all of them relate to JT in Romans 1-4. With a remarkable degree of
\nconsistency, he demonstrates that the major questions within Pauline
\nscholarship all relate to the intrinsic, systematic, and empirical difficulties
\nof JT.<\/p>\n

Having demonstrated twenty-one
\nproblems with JT in part one, Campbell makes some hermeneutical clarifications
\nin part two before addressing the textual basis of JT in part three. In chapter
\nseven, Campbell describes the discourse involved in reading Romans. At the base
\nof the discourse are the text itself, exegesis of the text, the argument of the
\ntext, and the circumstances in which the text was generated and received. But
\non top of the base is the superstructure, including explanations of the text,
\nparadigms, church history, and the ideocultural setting of the reader. When
\nreaders approach a text, they create a reading<\/i>
\nof the text. Subsequent approaches to the text invariably force previous
\nreadings on the text, potentially reading alien meanings into words and phrases,
\naccording to the reader-generated superstructure. Since Campbell’s work is challenging
\nthe reading<\/i> of the text (and not the
\ntext itself), JT advocates cannot respond to his critiques by reasserting JT
\nreadings of the same texts (as if their reading is inherent), for that is
\nbegging the question that Campbell is challenging. <\/span><\/p>\n

In chapters eight and nine,
\nCampbell addresses the presence of JT in the Reformers and within Modern
\nEurope.<\/p>\n

In part three, Campbell identifies
\nthirty-five exegetical problems with JT. In chapters ten and eleven, he walks
\nthrough Romans 1-4 to show the textual basis of JT, and then points out
\nthirty-five over- and underdeterminations. An underdetermination is an instance
\nin which a text does not say explicitly what a reading needs<\/i> it to say (for instance, nowhere is it explicit that the pist<\/i>– [“faith”] terminology is the means
\nby which salvation is appropriated). Overdeterminations are things that don’t
\nfit a reading, but tend to get brushed over because of commitment to the
\nreading (for instance Romans 2:6-10 and the possibility of righteous pagans).<\/p>\n

In chapter 12, Campbell interacts
\nwith others who have attempted to reframe or reread Romans 1-4 (Watson,
\nSanders, Dunn, and Stowers), finding them all unconvincing.  <\/span>  <\/span><\/p>\n

Having thoroughly discredited JT in
\nparts 1-3, Campbell offers his rereading of Romans 1-4 in part four. In chapter
\nthirteen, he describes the circumstances that led to the writing of Romans.
\nPaul was dogged by a Jewish-Christian teacher (“the Teacher”) who believed that
\nthe Gentiles needed to become Jewish to be Christian. We see evidence of the
\nTeacher’s work in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14), Galatia, and Philippi (Phil 3:2-11).
\nGiven the similarities between Romans and Galatians, it shouldn’t be surprising
\nthat Paul would be addressing a similar situation. The difference, however,
\nbetween Romans and Galatians, is that in Galatians, Paul wrote to a church he
\nfounded and whom the Teacher had already visited, and in Romans, Paul wrote to
\na church someone else founded and whom Paul anticipated<\/i>
\nthe Teacher visiting (thus the difference in tone and rhetoric). Since Paul
\nhoped to stop by Rome on his way to Spain, he wanted to win the Romans to his
\nside before the Teacher had a chance to turn them against him.<\/p>\n

In chapter fourteen, Campbell
\ndescribes his rereading of Romans 1:18-3:20. He argues that much of the chapter
\nis prosopopoiia<\/i>, playacting. In these
\nsections Paul mocks the fire-and-brimstone preaching of the Teacher, not
\nbecause he agrees with it, but so he can turn it against him and show that it
\nis not a true gospel. Thus, 1:18-32 does not represent the theology of Paul,
\nbut that of the Teacher. Romans 2:1-8 is Paul’s “turn” on the teacher to show
\nthat he can’t even live up to his own theology. In 2:9-29, Paul points out the contradictions
\nbetween the Teacher’s JT and his theology of election. If justification is by
\ndesert, then there is no basis for Jews to consider themselves privileged.
\nFinally, in 3:1-20, Paul exposes the Teacher’s “gospel” as bogus–that no one
\nwill be justified by works of the law.<\/p>\n

At this point it is important to
\nnote the differences between Paul’s theology and that of the Teacher. The
\nTeacher believes that salvation is according to JT–that God is a God of
\nretributive justice, that judgment will be according to works, and that only
\ncircumcision can purify the heart and lead to obedience and justification. (There
\nis a noted absence of Christology on the Teacher’s part.) Paul, on the other
\nhand, had a more participatory view of salvation (described in Romans 5-8). God
\nis a God of benevolence, and will one day deliver all humanity from the powers
\nof Sin and Death because of the faithfulness of Christ.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Chapter fifteen deals with pist<\/i>– terminology, especially in Romans
\n1:16-17 and 3:21-31. Campbell notes the verbal and conceptual parallels and
\nposits that 1:16-17 is a prelude to 3:21-31. The pist<\/i>– terminology refers to “faithfulness,” usually “the
\nfaithfulness of Christ” as a metonym for his death.<\/p>\n

In chapter sixteen, Campbell
\nanalyzes the justification language. He notes the martyrological narrative
\nparallel to 4 Maccabees, both based on a particular interpretation of the
\nbinding of Isaac in Genesis 22. Thus, Jesus is the new Isaac, who faithfully
\nwent with his father Abraham to be sacrificed, and his blood is atoning.
\nCampbell also notes that justification is liberating. Judicial verdicts are
\nboth indicative and performative. When a judge passes judgment, and it can make
\na statement about reality (“you are in the right”), or it can create a new
\nreality (“I declare you in the right”). A judge’s verdict may not reflect desert,
\nas in a judge releasing a guilty captive. Thus, for Campbell, God’s
\njustification of humanity is not in the sense of making them “in the right,”
\nbut in the sense of liberating them.<\/p>\n

This liberating sense of
\n“justification” naturally raises the question of what Campbell does with the
\nphrase, dikaiosune theou<\/i>, “the
\nrighteousness of God.” Campbell takes this up in chapter seventeen, following Kasemann
\nin arguing that it is a subjective genitive describing God’s saving or
\nliberating action. As the title of the book suggests, the best translation of dikaiosune theou<\/i> is “the deliverance of
\nGod.”<\/p>\n

Thus, Campbell would translate Romans
\n1:17, “For the deliverance of God [God’s saving action] is revealed from
\nfaithfulness [the faithfulness of Christ] to lead to faithfulness [the
\nfaithfulness of God’s people, in participation with Christ]; as it is written,
\n“The righteous one [Christ] will live [be resurrected] out of his
\nfaithfulness.” Thus, the significance of the Christ event was what it revealed
\nabout God–that he is a saving God and that he has acted definitively in Christ,
\nliberating all humanity from the powers of Sin and Death.<\/p>\n

In chapter eighteen, Campbell wades
\ninto Romans 3:27-4:25 and the discussion of Abraham. Campbell argues that
\nAbraham is not a “model of faith” for Christians to follow (after all, that
\nwould be setting the bar pretty high), but a “model of faithfulness” that
\nChrist followed and that is now shared with Christians by virtue of their
\nparticipation with Christ.<\/p>\n

Having shown that Romans 1-4 should
\nbe read in terms of “the deliverance of God” rather than JT, Campbell devotes
\nthe rest of the book to showing how his theory makes sense of the rest of the
\nPauline data outside of Romans 1-4. Throughout, he shows that his rereading can
\nexplain Paul without creating added difficulties, and that in many cases, it is
\na preferable reading than that of JT.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, Campbell develops
\nfour major disagreements with JT. First, Campbell insists that God’s fundamental
\nattribute is benevolence rather than retribution. Second, he insists that
\nPaul’s attitude toward Judaism is retrospective rather than prospective. In
\nother words, Paul didn’t realize that “by works of the law no man will be
\njustified” until after<\/i> he became a
\nChristian. Third, he insists that Judaism is not merely the ideal precondition
\nto becoming a Christian, or that the law merely functions to convict people so
\nthat they need to become Christians. Finally, “faith” is not the condition by
\nwhich salvation is appropriated, but rather evidence that one is being saved.
\nPositively stated, while Adam enslaved humanity to the powers of Sin and Death,
\nGod has acted benevolently and decisively in Jesus’ incarnation, death, and
\nresurrection to liberate all humanity from these sinister powers. (834)<\/p>\n

Campbell’s critique of JT is
\nbrutal. While not all of the fifty-six problems with JT are equally damning,
\nthe cumulative force of his scathing critique is crushing. The problems are
\ndiverse–internal contradictions, systematic contradictions, contradictions with
\nwhat we know about the world, and textual over-and underdeterminations. If we
\nare to reject Campbell’s rereading and retain JT, we have many questions to
\nanswer.<\/p>\n

In addition to his sharp and
\ntrenchant critique of JT, Campbell has also poignantly summarized the state of
\nPauline research. By grouping scholars according to his identified problems,
\nCampbell is able to clearly identify the questions each asked, the approach
\nthey took toward squaring JT with the text, and the conclusions each drew
\n(while suggesting that a better approach would have been to abandon JT
\naltogether). Someone looking for a clear summary of Pauline research over the
\nlast 200 years will have difficulty finding something better than Campbell’s.<\/p>\n

A third strength of Campbell’s book
\nis the breadth and depth of his exegesis. Even if one does not agree with his
\nthesis, his exegesis illuminates many traditionally dusky passages in Paul. His
\nemphasis on justification through participation allows micro-rereadings of
\npassages that use phrases like dikaiosune
\ntheou<\/i> (“the righteousness of God) or pistis
\nchristou<\/i> (“the faith\/faithfulness of Christ”). Finally, his emphasis on
\nretrospection in Paul’s attitude toward Judaism and the law fits nicely with
\nthe work of E.P. Sanders and Francis Watson.<\/p>\n

Despite Campbell’s brilliant summary
\nand deconstruction, he fails to deliver a plausible solution to the problems he
\nidentifies. He suggests a threefold approach to refuting his ideas: (1) JT must
\nsupply a positive justification for its own existence, (2) JT must resolve the
\ndifficulties Campbell has identified, and (3) JT must find difficulties with
\nCampbell’s rereading that outweigh his critique of JT (760-61). This review suggests
\na direction in which a more thorough critique could go.<\/p>\n

 <\/span>According to Campbell, the first step toward upholding JT is
\nto supply positive justification for its continuing existence. He suggests that
\nthe strongest argument in favor of it is that “it’s the best we have.” However,
\ndespite his insistence to the contrary, JT is established enough in antiquity
\nand in the Pauline corpus to warrant at least its consideration as a frame for
\nPauline thought.<\/p>\n

First, JT is present in Second
\nTemple Judaism, most notably in the Wisdom of Solomon (Campbell admits as much).
\nSecond, JT is present in early Christian thought. We need look no further than
\nthe man in 2:1 who endorses the theology of 1:18-32. Central to Campbell’s
\nrereading is the idea that the man in 2:1 is a Jewish-Christian Teacher
\npreaching a gospel contrary to Paul’s gospel. Thus, for Campbell’s rereading to
\nsucceed, he has to grant that some<\/i>
\nearly Christians endorsed JT, just not
\nPaul<\/i>. Finally, JT is present in the text of Romans itself. Again, Paul
\noutlines it in 1:18-32. Even according to Campbell’s rereading, JT is in
\nRomans, it’s just not endorsed by Paul. So, given that JT existed in Second
\nTemple Judaism, in early Christianity, and in the text of Romans itself, it
\nseems reasonable to consider that perhaps Paul endorsed it.<\/p>\n

The second step that Campbell
\nidentifies as necessary to refute his view is to answer his critique of JT. Of
\nthe three steps, this will be by far the most difficult to accomplish. It is
\nimportant to note however, that, even as Campbell admits that many of the
\nfifty-six problems have been identified and solved by previous Pauline scholars.
\nThe Lutheran, Reformed, and “New” perspectives on Paul are all vulnerable to some<\/i> of Campbell’s identified problems,
\nbut they each offer solutions, and none is vulnerable to all<\/i> of them.<\/p>\n

This is the first in a series of
\nposts on The Deliverance of God<\/i>. In
\nsubsequent posts, I will present what I feel are the most weighty of Campbell’s
\ncritiques of JT and ask the Jesus Creed community to react (Campbell’s second
\nstep for responding). Finally, I will explain (what I think are) some fatal
\nover- and underdeterminations in Campbell’s rereading (his third step for
\nresponding), and ask where we go from here.<\/p>\n

How committed are we to justification theory? Justification theory is
\nwidespread and important to many, but is it a measure of orthodoxy? Is it in
\nthe creeds? Campbell insists that he is not attacking the gospel, but defending
\nthe true gospel from a widespread misinterpretation. Can those of us committed
\nto the Third Way be objective with Campbell, or will we necessarily read him
\nwith suspicion because of our other commitments?<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

This is an incredible series being offered to us by Matt Edwards: a nine part summary and response to Douglas Campbell’s mega-book, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul . Thanks to Matt Edwards. The Deliverance of God 1–Summary and Plan for Review In The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gospel"],"yoast_head":"\nDeliverance of God 1 (Matt Edwards) - Jesus Creed<\/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\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deliverance of God 1 (Matt Edwards) - Jesus Creed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This is an incredible series being offered to us by Matt Edwards: a nine part summary and response to Douglas Campbell’s mega-book, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul . Thanks to Matt Edwards. The Deliverance of God 1–Summary and Plan for Review In The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Jesus Creed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-02T05:40:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jescre-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0802831265\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Scot McKnight\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Deliverance of God 1 (Matt Edwards) - Jesus Creed","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\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deliverance of God 1 (Matt Edwards) - Jesus Creed","og_description":"This is an incredible series being offered to us by Matt Edwards: a nine part summary and response to Douglas Campbell’s mega-book, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul . Thanks to Matt Edwards. The Deliverance of God 1–Summary and Plan for Review In The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html","og_site_name":"Jesus Creed","article_published_time":"2010-06-02T05:40:55+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jescre-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0802831265"}],"author":"Scot McKnight","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html","name":"Deliverance of God 1 (Matt Edwards) - Jesus Creed","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jescre-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0802831265","datePublished":"2010-06-02T05:40:55+00:00","dateModified":"2010-06-02T05:40:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/19879975236b70da80f4cbea933c59d0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jescre-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0802831265","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jescre-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0802831265"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/deliverance-of-god-1.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deliverance of God 1 (Matt Edwards)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/","name":"Jesus Creed","description":"Scot McKnight on Jesus and orthodox faith for today","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/?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\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/19879975236b70da80f4cbea933c59d0","name":"Scot McKnight","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/c10\/c10b0226ed6cfd8319b2b8742ac4088ax96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/c10\/c10b0226ed6cfd8319b2b8742ac4088ax96.jpg","caption":"Scot McKnight"},"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/author\/smcknight"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6371","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}