The Image of Dust: A Brief Reflection on 1 Cor. 15

Thinking about death is always an exercise in futility, pondering the inevitable and the unstoppable. It always makes for a good time at the dinner table.

Anyway.

In 1 Corinthians 15:46-49 Paul, after using a seed analogy throughout the first few verses in this pericope, focuses on the contrastive aspect of Christ and Adam. Adam, here, is likely typological in some sense, functioning as an antitype of Christ.

Adam’s origins, however, are under dispute and the debate about the existence of a ‘historical’ Adam are raging—at least in certain parts of the evangelical fold. However, Paul uses εἰκών (“image”) seems to specify a type of ‘material similarity’—which is specifically, in the genitive tense, χοϊκοῦ. An εἰκών represents something unseen (c.f. Col. 1:15-20) and is also a disjunction between the conceptual and the purely material. Christ, in a sense, is the revelation of God. As it says, he is God's fullness (Col. 2:9).

However, human beings are defined as χοϊκοῦ (“dust, earth”), as bearing that specific image in our present state. Human life, presently defined, is marked by pain, dust, and toil. It was then, and any glance on the evening news reveals that this painful aorist aspect is still ongoing.

In short, we are dust.

As a physicalist (or monist, I suppose) this is nothing new. Being in Adam's image means that we lack anything remotely like God: immortality.

Bearing the image of Adam, we share in mortality, in sin, and ultimately are subject to Death. That is what happens to material things, they breathe, bleed, and die. Then there is nothing.

Paul’s own historical context was not immune to this, and any pleasure was fleeting and likely immoral by Paul’s own moral standards. Ancient economics dictated that people were left to fend for themselves, to die in the streets, alone and barren.

Paul’s subsequent language regarding “immortality” (ἀθανασίαν) is a remarkable claim, especially to the poor and destitute. The totality of the populace likely lived in strict poverty, and any sort of religious cult likely included a high entrance fee.

God, it seems, is willing to offer ἀθανασίαν to the poor and the oppressed. The interplay between verbs (ἐφορέσαμεν; φορέσομεν) in v.49 is clear: a present and ongoing reality versus a future hope is something that we bear, and will bear through participation in Christ.

To God, we are not merely dust.

In the eschaton, we will be defined as being “fully human.”

That is Paul’s greatest hope, and one that I deeply share. Resurrection of the body is the direct counter to the totality of the human experience, and means that one is not alone in the universe, and one is not discarded by God.

Sounds good to me.

NQ

Do You Love God? Life, Sexual Sin, and Identity

Do you love God for who he is or for what he gives you?

I am not a fan of saying that difficult times are always God's way of teaching us lessons (how morbid), but sometimes he shows us things about ourselves when we are tested to our limit. Sometimes due to circumstances where a difficult choice (or series of choices) must be made or simply dealing with the aftermath of other people's choices we have to decide: Why am I a Christian? Or, more to the point: Why do I love God?

The book of Job explores this question in the context of a story and poem involving human suffering. Does one honor God for who who he is or for what he can give you? The adversary (surprise "the satan" is not the devil!) raises this question with God about Job claiming he only really loves God because he gives Job lots of stuff. What follows are a series of horrific outcomes that leave Job with nothing. He mourns, he complains, he tells God he wishes he wasn't born, he cries injustice...etc but never curses God. In the process his friends try and convince him he must have done some horrible sin and should repent. He doesn't. In the end, God says Job is in the right but also rather than giving Job answers concerning his plight tells him of many deep mysteries he does not understand because God's wisdom is greater than his.

What I find interesting about this story is the question(s) it poses and its setting in the middle of a person who does not know why bad things are happening to him nor does he know the future outcome. He is posed over and over again implicitly or explicitly to choose between himself and God. Either he is right or God is right. If you are right then curse God! If you are wrong then repent of your sin...that you never committed. This is a false dichotomy that is only sometimes realized on the other side of our decisions.

What does this have to do with sin and specifically sexual sin? In a very real way we choose between God and ourselves every day. Maybe nothing bad happens to us but we want to do things as Christians we are not supposed to do. In this culture people find a good portion of their identity in their sexuality--well even then, more narrowly who they sleep with. For Christians, those who claim to love God, sex is only for a monogamous marriage between husband and wife. And yet, so many in their actions say "Screw you God!" and do whatever they want. Although there are many angles to explore this reality from, I think the question of the book of Job is helpful here. Why are so many willing to deny God in practice?

Perhaps the question has never been posed in this setting? "Do you love God?" is replaced with "Did God really say???" Or not addressed. There is nothing to threaten one's sense of love, morality or character--whether one is being a good or bad person.

We want relationships free of obligations and commitments to God and others. Sometimes we want a god in the sky we can conjure up when we need or want things. We want a god who will not ask tough questions or demand anything of us. We want to love "god" who has no opinions of his own and tells us what we want to hear or is a kind grandpa who looks the other way and says "no big deal" I don't really mind what you do.

In the end, is our god an item or abstract concept we project ourselves upon? Is he one who has no opinions of his own and doesn't speak? An imaginary friend? Santa Clause? A distant god who has nothing to say and never revealed himself in any in depth way throughout history?

I think that in the end, many (who claim to believe in the God of the Bible) have decided either in only a moment of weakness (mistakes happen and there is forgiveness) or as a life practice that they more care about the things they get than a relationship with God. Instant gratification takes priority over commitments and promises to the one they say they gave their life to (a relationship marriage itself symbolizes).

Of course, here I have not discussed why one ought to love God or other reasons why we should trust what he says (the two do go together). I have merely been pointing out that the choice to go against God is just that. One can't have it both ways. We all ultimately have to decide: do I love God? Those who love God and are in a relationship with him know that living life with and not against him is ultimately not living life against oneself.

-AQ

“We hunger for a word that would bring a personal touch from someone other than the almighty market…We are thirsty and hungry, hoping for more. We long for a word from God.

However, when we are honest with ourselves, we also long for a word from God that conforms to our own plans and wishes. We want a word from God that endorses our own decisions and priorities. We want to be affirmed by God in what we are already doing, not confronted and called to repentance. We want God’s word, but on our own terms.” –J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God, 1.

Mutual Submission: Following the Way of Christ

"Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God...submitting yourselves to one another in reverence for Christ." --Ephesians 5:1-2, 21

"Wives, [submit] to your own husbands, as to the Lord." v.22

Where does v.22 of Ephesians 5 begin in your church, the sermons you listen to or Bible study? Is it on its own? Does it pose as the start of a sermons series on how men and women are different?

Context is everything and where one begins and ends in their reading says something about how one views the world. Nick and I are egalitarians. In an evangelical context this means we believe the Bible teaches the mutual submission of Christians within the church and home. When it comes to gender, this means that no individual makes unilateral decisions or has more authority based only on gender. This means we defer to one another according to our gifting and tend to make decisions together where possible.

At our wedding, we had Ephesians 5:1-2, 21-33 read. We chose this arrangement because the larger context of v.22 "wives [submit] to your own husbands" is actually the entire church imitating God in loving one another to the extent they are willing to sacrifice themselves. After explaining what this looks like generally, v.21 transitions us into marriage as an example of how much Christ loved the church. Everyone, including husbands and wives should submit themselves to one another in reverence for Christ.

How do we know that v.21 does go with v.22? Well, there is no verb "submit" in v.22. It is added in English Bibles (usually put in italics) because it is inferred from v.21. Wives submitting to their husbands is part of the larger picture of mutual submission.

Although women are addressed first (unheard of in ancient household codes), husbands are told again what everyone was already told in vv.1-2; that is to be willing to lay down their lives for others--in this case their wife! They are also supposed to regard their wives as part of their own body. The reasoning is that because the wife is part of the husband's own body it would be stupid not to honor and take care of her! In the Old Testament (also a world where women were financially dependent on men) not being taken care of by one's husband was grounds for a divorce. 

Regarding others as part of the same body of Christ is a larger theme of Ephesians (maybe Nick and I will do a Bible study on it one day). In fact, it sounds very Christian to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself anyway. Still, despite the reality that nowhere in Ephesians 5 are husbands told how to, or even to lead their households somehow some people still read Ephesians 5 as prescribing male and female differences that include "servant" leadership for the husband and "submission" for women. Usually v.21 is not read with v.22 or when it is, it is still somehow explained in terms of men leading. 

Why? If we were looking purely at the text and not tackling any cultural or political reasons, it would come down to a metaphor that English speakers take for granted is the same for everyone else: "head" = leadership. In Koine Greek it is difficult to assign leadership as a likely or valid meaning for kephale (read Philip Payne or Richard Cervin on this). A better fit is "preeminence" with the sense of "source." If one understands Paul's metaphor this way, the husband is being described not as an authority figure, but as a source of nourishment for his body--the wife. He too must follow Christ's example and lay down his life for the body (i.e. his wife). In fact, grammatically "head" and "savior" are in a relationship of apposition meaning Paul gives you "savior" to understand what he means by his metaphor "head." To be the head of the body is to be life-giving and willing to die for it, not specifically to lead it.

In today's world we don't like the idea of "submitting" to anyone, but at times rather like the idea of others deferring to us. In Paul's day and in much of the world today men are the default leaders and women subordinate. In the United States, this is still the case in its own way in the culture of many churches with the extreme opposite among many radical feminists who put their classical liberal counterparts to shame. This message of mutual submission is timely (as it always is!). We are not to think in terms of zero sum (if you then not me), but in terms of us all being interconnected and patterning ourselves after the model of Christ. That is, submitting, even in the ultimate sense to the other and seeing Christ in the other so that our relationships are defined not by seeking authority for ourselves but by at times giving it up out of reverence for Christ who is the gift God gave us.

-AQ

Is it by "Grace" You are being Saved? Some Fragmented Thoughts on Ephesians

In John Barclay’s new book Paul and the Gift, he explores the dynamics of “grace” (χάρις) within Romans and Galatians. He argues “against modern notions of ‘altruism,’ we found that benefits were generally intended to foster mutuality, by creating or maintaining social bonds. This expectation of reciprocity, with its (non-legal) obligations, created cyclical patterns of gift-and-return, even where there were large differentials in power between givers and recipients.”[1]

In Ephesians, there are two key texts that are often used to support the argument of “grace.” These are Ephesians 2:5 and 2:8. The Greek word χάρις is usually—if not always—translated as “grace,” and this is often seen as something “freely given” or bestowed with no strings attached. Since the Reformation, Ephesians 2:1-10 has played a large and somewhat helpful role for defining certain doctrines. However, I want to suggest an alternative reading based on my own research and the research done by John Barclay.

So, here are the two texts in question:

2:5 – καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι

“And we being dead by the offenses are made alive by means of Christ—by grace you are being liberated” (NRQT).

2:8 – τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως. καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον

“For in grace you are being liberated through faithfulness; and this not from you, [rather it is] God’s offering gift” (NRQT).

Now there is much to say, and I don’t want this to turn into a term paper, so I will limit myself to three observations.

First, the phrases are identical: χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι – singular feminine noun in the dative + plural verb + plural middle participle. There is a debate amongst Greek grammarians about middle versus passive tenses. For instance, if a participle is in the middle voice, it has the action of the actor in mind. Ex: humble yourselves. If it is passive, then it referring to an external action being placed upon the actor. Ex: you are being humbled. The problem lies in the fact that σεσῳσμένοι in both verses is technically middle/passive. So which option works best? The arguments most often boil down to context. I suggest that the entire pericope is bracketed by two specific verbs from the περιπατέω word group (they mean “walk” or “live,” in the sense of conducting yourselves ethically). Both are in the aorist tense, suggesting active conduct on the part of the Gentiles being addressed. So the entire framework seems to assume a sort of participation. God exhorts people, elects people, adopts people, and their participation is required. Thus, σεσῳσμένοι likely includes an active component that is contextually necessary.

Second, because of Barclay’s current conclusions regarding χάρις, it seems that it is best to read these two verses as follows.

2:5 – “And we being dead by the offenses are made alive by means of Christ—by the gift you are being liberated” (NRQT).

2:8 – “For in the gift you are being liberated through faithfulness; and this not from you, [rather it is] God’s offering gift” (NRQT).

This works well for two reasons. First it seems to be a better historical fit, especially in light of the mutuality inherent in the concept of “gift-giving.” Second, 2:8 concludes with a verb less clause: θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον, and δῶρον is actually the specific word for “gift” or “offering gift.” So 2:8 begins with χάρις and ends with δῶρον, and while these terms are clearly not synonymous, they do reflect well together the concept of an “offering gift.” Thus, the use of τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 4:7 (“the gift of Christ” or “Christ’s gift”) is coordinate with the idea of “gift giving” and helps us reconsider “grace.” The “gift” of God is the principle point of theological focus for Gentiles in Ephesians.

Third and finally, the genitival phrase διὰ πίστεως in 2:8 includes an active component as well. The preposition διὰ can be variously translated as “through” or “by means of.” So here, since πίστεως is an active noun likely referring to “faithfulness” (as it flows nicely with the bracketed language about περιπατέω: see above), this genitival phrase flows nicely with the rest of the verse: καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον. God offers the gift of Christ, and Christ actively offers himself in the same reciprocal manner, in order to illustrate what God is doing for the Gentiles. The reciprocal nature of our “faithfulness” and God’s “gift” illustrates the dance humanity is invited to participate within.

In summation, much more could be said about this, but allow me a few concluding thoughts.

First, χάρις is not free. It costs God something, and it is a gift that demands human participation διὰ πίστεως. All things "cost" something, especially if the "gift" is given to those who are not wealthy or are socially maligned. It costs God's "honor," even though God does not appear to care much for his own glory sometimes. God gives χάρις to all people regardless of their social status, their gender, or their ethnicity. However, this χάρις is not without 'strings' or 'demands' or 'obligations.' There is no discrimination, but there is a high demand for participation and reciprocity. 

Second, Christ stands at the center of action, as agent, as Messiah, as Liberator, and as Son of God. Thus, the origination of the gift resides in God and not in us. However, the demand for “imitation” (5:1-2) and mutual responses reveals a God who desires a human response to his offering. The "gift of Christ" did not originate with us, and this illustrates that we are to participate within this "gift." God, as wealthy, can afford to give the "gift" to all.

Third and ultimately, God’s offering gift of Christ to Gentiles reveals a God who can restore people from the dead, even those who were lost and forgotten among us. We respond to God’s gift, and this gift is not “free” – it cost Christ his own honor, it cost him his body, and ultimately it cost him his life. Our life, then, is to yield ourselves and act with Christ.

Is it by "grace" you are being saved? No. It is because of God's in Christ's offering gift that we are being saved, and it is in Christ that we reciprocate God's gift through imitation (4:25-5:2). Christ's faithfulness is our imitation. Thankfully, we may have life in his name if we imitate Christ and participate in God’s plan for the restoration of the world.

We "live" and "walk" by faithfulness, by the Gift, by Christ.

NQ

*post script*

I had some twitter friends and colleagues (April and Thomas) offer some helpful push back. Particularly of the phrases οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν ("not from you" - 2:8) and οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ("not from works" - 2:9). I offer some thoughts that the originational aspect of "gift" lies with God, and is not from us. God as 'wealthy' gives Christ to the poor, and these verses do not exclude human participation but rather point to the source of the gift: God and Christ. Just in case this was not clear, and I thank the Revs. April and Thomas for their thoughts again. This reveals, of course, that Ephesians is Theo-centric and there is much mystery to be explored!

[1] John M.G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 562.

Vater Unser

Vater unser im Himmel,
geheiligt werde dein Name;
dein Reich komme;
dein Wille geschehe,
wie im Himmel so auf Erden.
Unser tägliches Brot gib uns heute.
Und vergib uns unsere Schuld,
wie auch wir vergeben unsern Schuldigern;
und führe uns nicht in Versuchung,
sondern erlöse uns von dem Bösen.

Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft
und die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit.

Amen.

I find myself in the awkward position of taking a theological German class over the summer not knowing if I can even finish my program. My assignment is to memorize "Our Father" in German and it has given me yet another opportunity to think about life and theology. I am not a huge fan of Moltmann, but I think he was right in saying we are all theologians. Human beings are religious creatures and we all interpret our world--and I think we all interpret it theologically whether atheist, someone who goes to church occasionally or whether we do it professionally. Is God near us? Looking from a distance? Absent? Or is he everywhere present, his presence filling the world? If so then why is this world the world as it is? All of this to say that I think theology is most powerful when it connects with life as we know it and we make this connection consciously. We can allow new information and new experiences to shape our theology or world outlook while most importantly allowing God's Word through the Spirit to enter into our situation and meet us wherever we are and form us.

I like the "Our Father" prayer because it is so simple. There is both a sense of nearness and distance in it. God is our "father" but who is in heaven. We are waiting for his kingdom (of justice, life, peace and prosperity), but we are waiting. We are waiting for this world to be manifested as his world. In our waiting we ask him for the what we need to live alongside his priorities--bread to eat, the ability to forgive as we receive God's forgiveness and deliverance from the evil one.

Sometimes we just live in a tension between two worlds.

I'm told I am difficult to pray for sometimes. Someone asked me if I believed I was entitled to what I needed to flourish in life because I was a child of God. I said I did but that I could nonetheless die of starvation, disease or any number of things. Maybe more to the point, I am not someone who is hopeful God will resolve all of my problems and yet I know he cares about the little things too. I know of a family that served in the church for many years and got betrayed in the worst way by the dad's own father and then by the church that promised to take them under their wing but instead took their time and money. I also know that he does get people out of harsh circumstances almost miraculously.

However, sometimes we are just stuck and all we can do is pray for bread.

-AQ

God Ordained Slavery or Freedom in Christ?

In the darker history of the United States, slaveholders took passages such as Ephesians 6:5 to rationalize slavery as a “God-ordained institution” and themselves as God’s chosen rulers. This is of course well after getting over their fear of slaves becoming Christians lest they demand their freedom in Christ!

That said, how are we to understand some of these “difficult” passages? For starters we should recognize what we bring to passages such as Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters…” To recognize where there is difference and where there might be overlap, not assuming the two are exactly the same and trying to understand the writer on his own terms. Not getting caught in the awkward position of assuming what we consider ideal is always an attainable reality either.

Perhaps the God of the Bible meets his people where they are in reality and not where they always ought to be. In the apostle Paul’s day slavery was already a reality. People sometimes sold themselves into slavery to gain a better name, status, to eat, or to get out of debt. Some people were sold into slavery by parents. Someone could be a high status slave better off than most free people or could be a prostitute. Some may have had a shop on the side, some could buy their freedom if they wanted and some were just stuck.

Paul speaks to those who are stuck and those who aren’t. In 1 Corinthians 7:21-24 he explains that everyone can be a good Christian no matter what condition they find themselves—but if they are slaves and can get their freedom to do it! Why? In v.23 slavery is said to be antithetical to freedom in Christ. So, if you can help it, don’t sell yourselves into slavery!

“You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.”

Not only do we live in a less than perfect world, we live in this world with all its horrors. Some people were slaves and there was nothing they could do about it. This was the reality of many of the people spoken to in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Let us consider Ephesians 6:5-9 with this in mind without demanding that God give sanitized directions only to happy free people. Note a few interesting things about the passage: In a context where slaves had no choice but to be obedient (this was not optional), obedience is shifted from a master who is only “according to the flesh” to Christ. Why? Because they are “slaves of Christ” a title Paul gives himself as an apostle (ex: Rom 1:1). In other words, even though one cannot choose whether or not to be obedient they can choose do what they do for God (their real master) who gave them Christ as an inheritance rather than for their master.

Then there are the masters. Could Paul make them give slaves who wanted to be free their freedom? No—though we know of one instance where he tried (Perhaps as is the case in the book of Philemon, it would be best to free “the child” and “heart” of an elderly apostle one is indebted to—especially when the entire church is going to hear about what is decided). Whether or not Paul was able to pull strings and get concrete freedom for those in slavery, he did feel free to tell the masters that they are actually also slaves and the same directions to the slaves apply to them! If they treat a fellow slave badly, the real Master does not see the same status difference they claim for themselves (ex: Eph 6:9 c.f. Col 3:25).

God’s ideal is not merely a “spiritual” or other worldly freedom, a dream to pacify the have-nots. Its inherent danger is that it threatens our present with a new ideology that diffuses power of various kinds. When relaying a very practical problem in the church of Jews not eating with gentiles Paul explains that this is hypocritical to the gospel of liberty and justification (Gal 2). Coming off of this larger discussion is the famous passage in Gal 3:28: “Here there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In other words, freedom should be something practiced here and now not merely in the afterlife.

As Christians we live in tension between God’s future and our present. God’s freedom is for all of us and this freedom can begin to work itself out in concrete ways now while we struggle on this earth. And lets be people of freedom who do not hold onto power over others that is not ours in the first place.

-AQ

The Christ Gift: A (Brief) Exegesis of Ephesians 4:7

Ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

“And each one of us has been given favor according to the content of the gift of Christ” (NRQT).

The language of “gift” in Paul has recently undergone a major overhaul in light of John Barclay’s book, Paul and the Gift. While Barclay’s work centers on χάρις, here I think the use of the genitive construction τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ nicely fulfills Barclay’s proposal: χάρις is better rendered as "gift."

V.7 is the concluding statement of vv.1-7 that comprises a pericope or block of text. Beginning with παρακαλῶ, Paul exhorts his Gentile audience to live into their calling (4:1), and goes on to utilize a (possible) baptismal formula or creed that stresses unity within a corporate community by the repeated use of εἷς (“one”). Paul’s conclusion stems from all urging a community of mutualism and care in one body, and this is “according to the content of the gift of Christ.”

The issue with genitive phrase τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ is whether or not Christ is ‘possessive.’ Is Christ the actual gift given by God, or rather is the gift belonging to Christ, which in turn is given to us? Most translations and commentators render the phrase is the normal sense, “gift of Christ.” For my part, I think it could go either way, especially in light of 5:2 where Christ “hands himself over” (παρέδωκεν) or in the previous phrase in 4:23 where God “granted” (ἐχαρίσατο) to us in Christ. There are many other verses to explore, but the point is that Christ is both object and active agent in Ephesians and there does not appear to be any attempt by Paul to systematize this imagery.

How, then, does this work? I suspect both are true in various respects. Christ is given to us (4:32), and Christ as Messiah and Lord is the one who actively came for us (Phil. 2:6-8). This articular δωρεᾶς harkens back Psalm 68:18 (LXX) where God is the one who ascends the mountain and gives gifts. However, Christ is the one here to seemingly gives gifts, which also include people within the church (c.f. 4:11-12). Thus, I suspect this δωρεᾶς is Christologically oriented and Christ functions as the one who ascends and descends. In the LXX the word for gift is δόματα, a similar word to the one under consideration.

Thus, one could say that Christ is the one who gives gifts, including himself, to the people of God. He does this as the Incarnate Lord, the suffering servant, and as the victor over sin and death.

Most of all, he does this because the Messiah “loved us” (ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς: the aorist tense does not refer to a once and for all act, but to an ongoing state that has no fixed stoppage). Christ’s love and gift are linked together, and we are all called to participate in this “gift.” This 'Christ Gift' includes sacrifice and love as its currency, and for those who are bankrupt, this is indeed good news.

NQ

Paul, Onesimus and the Power of Solidarity in Philemon

Throughout Philemon, Paul uses several key terms in relation to the dispute between Onesimus and the household (Philemon, Apphia, Archippus and all who meet in their home). Chief among these is the nouns δέσμιος (“prisoner”) and δεσμοῖς (“chains”), used in vv.1, 9-10 and 12, where the first use of the term is directly self-applied: Paul calls himself a δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in v.1 ("prisoner of Christ Jesus") and again in v.9. The significance of the epistolary opening (here vv.1-3) is that Paul has set the stage with a rhetorically fascinating move by applying the noun of subjection to himself.

This self-designation (along with δοῦλος: “slave”) is not uncommon in the introduction of Paul’s epistles (c.f. Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Eph. 3:1) and in the subsequent Pauline tradition (Tit. 1:1). Here, however, the term δέσμιος has a more nuanced and rhetorically powerful range. But first, allow me to paint the picture.

The social context of Philemon is notoriously complex, as if one has dimly lit a big stage. Any struggle to see the various moving parts and additional stagehands and actors automatically makes it difficult to piece together a coherent reason for this epistle. However, it is my contention that Onesimus is not a runaway slave, but is more likely an emissary of this house church, being sent away (perhaps as a ‘useless’ slave; see v.20) by them to serve Paul in some temporary capacity. While the concept of “owing” (v.18; ὀφείλει) may refer to a fiscal or legal debt (though this is doubtful), it seems more probable that this ‘debt’ Onesimus has refers to the problem of simply being a slave in the ancient world, with all the duties and expectations that follow. The use of the conjunctive particle εἰ in vv.17-18 (“if”) also lessens the need for certitude regarding Onesimus’ runaway status.

Paul, by sending back this slave—presumably with this actual epistle for the household, a canonized book of the New Testament—has within a single word undermined the sovereignty of the household. Identifying himself as δέσμιος is a blatant characterization of himself with slave status, particularly a higher master all within the household know: Christ Jesus. By this, Paul is appealing to a higher power, just to cover his bases. Paul is himself captive to Christ in the same way Onesimus was captive to the household, even in obligation.

In order to stress continuity between him and the slave, Paul identifies Onesimus as his σπλάγχνα “(heart; inner seat of emotions” in v.7, 12, 20), showing the household that Onesimus is no longer a slave (assuming Paul believed that Onesimus was a slave from the beginning, which seems doubtful), but is instead a ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν (“beloved brother”). The power of Paul’s rhetoric is the undermining of the status of Onesimus as slave by identifying himself with Onesimus, and identifying Onesimus as himself. Instead of sending Onesimus off to be brutalized or possibly kept in harsh work, Paul performs something like a synecdoche. Paul’s subsequent referral of himself as πρεσβύτης (“old man”) suggests a firm and wise adage: honor those older than yourself.

How could the household refuse Paul, especially with this language of kinship, as a prisoner of Christ?

How could they take Paul’s statement about “no longer as a slave” as anything else?

Onesimus, then, is no longer a prisoner but a member of God’s family. Where Onesimus had little voice or moral agency in the world as a slave, Paul took it upon himself to both identify with him and speak up for the one who had no voice or status. Paul affirmed Onesimus' moral and cognitive agency by using the bodily image of “emotions” to communicate that he stands as Onesimus (v.20).

Because of Paul’s rhetoric on Onesimus’ behalf, as his advocate, it is highly likely Onesimus was granted manumission and continued to serve with Paul in the Gospel (Col. 4:9). This of course depends on the dating and authorship of Colossians (I do think Paul wrote Colossians, and Philemon is more likely to have been written first) Sometimes, it is the little things, the words we speak on behalf of others that make all of the difference.

What a marvelous epistle.

NQ

Dealing with Loss (Great and Small): A Theological Reflection on Faith

Honestly, I despise words of “comfort” that many suffering Christians receive. The kind that interprets horrific events as lessons from God or “blessings in disguise” or, perhaps on the positive side, the promise of the American Dream: If I trust God I will get a great and/or fulfilling job, and be successful. Maybe on a good day someone will simply say, “all things will turn out for good.” If by the latter one means the resurrection, consummation of the kingdom and transformation of humanity and the world—then yes, I agree!

A relationship with God is more complicated than a reliance on someone who rewards good behavior with earthly blessings or on one who requires you to have a positive cheerful attitude at all times (just read Job or the Prophets!). The God of the Bible became a human being. He was not a Jesus who laughed next to the cross, but who lived in poverty, was often rejected, betrayed by friends and died at a young age. The God of the Bible is also the one who was continually betrayed and denied by the people he blessed over the years throughout the Old Testament.

So lets cut to the chase. What happened recently? Nick and I recently discovered that nearly all of our funding for school has been suddenly cut off starting in 2017. Why? The answer is complicated. It is enough to say that the church that was helping us (and others) were afraid and made a decision in haste. They do not owe us anything and I am immensely thankful for the help they have provided us over the years. Still, this leaves Nick and I in a bind because this announcement came after other scholarship and loan applications ended. This threatens what I have worked much of my life towards and the dream Nick and I have for teaching Bible and theology at a university or seminary one day for a living.

But I’ve got faith in God. I believe if he wants us to fulfill these dreams he will make a way. He may not. I know what it is like to trust God through child abuse and back injuries that left me constantly exhausted through a good portion of life. God did not make the adult who abused me over many years stop. What he did do was come alongside me in my suffering and fought the lies about my personhood, taught me how to live, that I was loved and to love others. He taught me from another unusual event (that I may speak about in the future) that his wondrous and good presence is everywhere despite appearances. 

To sum everything up, I believe Jesus has indeed lived, died and rose again for the sins and glorification of humanity and that his kingdom is breaking into the present. I trust in God, not in the American dream. Evil and difficulties may persist for a time, but God’s kingdom has already been inaugurated and will soon be consummated.

"Sing a song full of hope that the present has brought us; facing the rising sun of our new day begun, let us march on till victory is won."

-AQ

Liberation and Adoption of Gentiles in Ephesians 1

In many evangelical theological circles, Ephesians 1:3-14 is the vestibule (to use Douglas Campbell's word from The Deliverance of God - you can tell what I'm reading!) of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. For my own money, the Arminian rendering of this text makes most sense[1] but that lies outside of my direct interest for this blog post.

I see the larger picture in Ephesians 1 as being about God’s character, and this leads Paul to describe the election of a people in Christ by using familial and economic imagery to convey this point. The audience of Ephesians is not primarily Jews, and is largely centered on Gentile converts or those who are interested in Israel’s God (c.f. (2:1-22; 3:1-12; 4:17-23).

I will attempt to convey my reflections in two points.

1. God as Father

God is spoken of as father quite prominently in Ephesians 1, specifically in 1:3. Paul’s invoking of the “father” imagery is stark, as a father in the ancient world had the power of adoption or expulsion but was also the one who gave the inheritance to his sons and daughters. God the Father, as such, is wealthy enough to give an inheritance to the Gentiles and has adopted them through Christ (v.4). The use of υἱοθεσίαν signifies, again, the removal from one sphere and placement within another. Adoption, then, is economic, liberative, and familial. The father desires to give gifts (χάριτος: some translate this as ‘grace,’ but I think ‘gift’ works better here) to the Gentiles, and has enough for all who participate in Christ’s liberative act of redemption. To that,w e turn next.

2. Christ as Liberator

My main reflection on this point centers on 1:7, where Paul writes ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ: “In [or by] whom we have liberation through his blood” (NRQT). The parallel in Colossians 1:14 also uses ἀπολύτρωσιν as well, where Christ’s blood (i.e. ‘death’) is involved in some sort of manner. Perhaps Paul has in mind substitution, but the idea of “slavery” is found in the Old Testament where liberation results in the setting free of an individual or a people (see the Exodus). Thus, the concept of “ransom” seems more likely in Ephesians 1:7: being liberated from a previous sphere of influence by Christ.

Paul’s use of liberation (usually translated as “redemption”) is an odd term, as it only occurs 10 times in the New Testament. For Paul, it is a term that conveys the notion of being “set free” or “ransomed” from a previous state. In Romans 3:24, Paul speaks about the “righteousness/ righteousness” that comes διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (“through the liberation by Christ Jesus”). Liberation in Paul is seen in Christological and Pneumetological terms, where Christ and/or the Holy Spirit are active in creation for the sake of Gentiles. In Ephesians 1, it is in Christ we have liberation, and in 1:14, it is the “release” of our inheritance that is conducted through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our down payment, based on the work God does in and by Christ for the sake of non-Jews.

God, in Christ, has something for those who previously did not worship him as God.

Jesus is spoken about as Χριστός in Ephesians 1:3-14 quite prominently, which suggests the motif of “kingship” and does not remove Jesus from the Messianic sphere. Jesus is still king, the one who liberates the Gentiles from their former sphere of sin and death and subjection.

To outsiders - then and now - this is true gospel: Christ, through the Father, is the benevolent King who liberates us from our former domain of Sin and oppression and Death, the one calling us sons and daughters. In this new realm of Christ’s kingdom, we participate fully as equal members of Christ’s body.

Final Thought.

In this Messiah, we are sons and daughters, brought together by a wealthy father that desires all people to be in his family. Being ‘predefined’ beforehand by God’s grace, to actively live into our calling. God’s gift of Christ, then, is not limited but is for all people—Jew and Gentile, Christian and not.

Is God not the God of all people?

NQ

[1] See Brian Abasciano, “Clearing up Misconceptions about Corporate Election,” Ashland Theological Journal 2009. http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/41-1_059.pdf

Justification and Life for All in Romans 5:12-21?

After a fun-filled time of great plenaries and a random guy who prayed for my fertility--and keeping Nick from shouting profanities--I gave my first paper presentation at the Rethinking Hell Conference. Basically, this is a super long academic paper that primarily makes an exegetical case for universal accessibility to salvation, not universal salvation. At the end I conceptualize universal accessibility (argued from the text) from the vantage point of a conditionalist theological framework (not an argument for conditionalism).

In my opinion, any time someone announces they are going to do a "Calvinist" or "Egalitarian" reading/exegesis of a text they are doing exegesis + theology. For better or worse I decided for fun to separate exegesis from my larger theological position and announce and integrate it at the end!  --AQ

New Space, Square Space

Well, hi there.

Allison and I (Nick) are trying something new here. Because of our mutual interests and desire to use our education, we've created this site in order to teach and engage with other people. Our goal, tentatively, is to create a podcast at least twice a month -- though we are still in negotiations about this.

The range of the podcast will be wide, especially considering the weird and wild nature of the world we all occupy. Largely, however, we will be focusing on matters of theology and practice. We may even have the occasional guest or blog contributor, so keep your eyes open for that.

Thank you to those that read our blogs (sorry about not writing more!), and we hope you will join us on this journey. Thanks again, and to the future.

NQ