Jesus Vs. The Scribes December 5, 2009

²⁸ Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
²⁹ Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. ³⁰ And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. ³¹ And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
³² So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. ³³ And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
³⁴ Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
But after that no one dared question Him.

³⁵ Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? ³⁶ For David himself said by the Holy Spirit:

‘ The LORD said to my Lord,

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’
³⁷ Therefore David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”
And the common people heard Him gladly.

A Brief Foreword

Once upon a time, I didn’t feel that the need to defend the doctrine of the Trinity among my brothers and sisters was of first importance. But about two weeks ago, tons of questions began springing into my mind. The problem I now faced wasn’t so much that I couldn’t answer the questions, but that I couldn’t sweep them under “practical” matters anymore. So I decided to pick up a book I came across while I perused the theology section at my local bookstore. The book?

Kevin Giles’ is concerned that modern evangelicals have begun to embrace a modified version of Arianism in their uncritical acceptance of the eternal subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to God the Father. He goes over the orthodox creeds (i.e. the Athanasian Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc), and compares the contemporary teachings of men like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, in order to identify for the reader where these men are beginning to depart from traditional orthodoxy. He maintains that their position on the eternal subordination of God the Son to God the Father (as opposed to His temporal/incarnational subordination for the purposes of redemption) is neither biblical nor supported by any of the traditional orthodox creeds.

I’m not finished with the book yet, so I won’t be addressing its content here. Instead, what I want to address is another question that arose while I read Giles’ explanation of his theological method (i.e. proper exegesis + comparison with the orthodox tradition [beginning with The Apologists running down through Karl Barth and Millard Erickson]):

Was the doctrine of the Trinity gradually reached via reflection spurred on by historical necessity? Or are we just slow on the uptake?

In John’s gospel, the Lord Jesus articulates the doctrine of the Trinity (cf. John 14-17, The Upper Room Discourse), but can we find Him doing this, implicitly or explicitly, anywhere else?

How is He his Lord? Mark 12:28-37

Looking at Mark’s gospel, we see that what was at stake in Jesus’ exchange with the scribes was not simply whether or not He would accurately answer their question regarding the first commandment, but the question of His divinity in light of the form of monotheism held by the scribes. Rather than seeing the Lord’s statement regarding their misinformed Messianic theology (vv. 35-37) as being a narratively abrupt aside, its relationship to the first commandment question, I think, can be seen in their response to His answer. They exclaim:

³² “So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.”

Jesus’ response establishes that the Word of God teaches monotheism. However, what does that entail precisely? For the scribes, the Messiah was simply the son of David. But as, Jesus points out, if David calls Him “Lord” how then can He be his Son? Yes, there is but one God. However, but how are we to understand this in light of David’s presentation of the Messiah as his descendant and Lord (God)?

In the Jesus’ response, we see that He contrasts the authority of the scribes over and against the authority, not of Himself, but of the Holy Spirit.We read in vv. 35b-36:

…“How is it that the scribes say [...]? ³⁶ For David himself said by the Holy Spirit…

The Messianic theology of the scribes is shown to be seriously flawed, for although “the scribes say,” David said “by the Holy Spirit.” Jesus is appealing to the Old Testament to underline His divinity as being clearly taught, although obviously not very well understood by the scribes. The Father is God, the Messiah is also God, yet, Jesus maintains, there is but one God.

But more implicitly, Jesus is appealing to the authority that David has by the Holy Spirit. David isn’t speaking on his own, the Holy Spirit is speaking through him, although he was obviously aware of what he was saying (cf. v. 38). What we see in this response, therefore, isn’t just an aside, but a detailed response to the unitarian monotheism of the scribes.

Jesus gives a compact, dense picture of the Trinity in co-equal operation with respect to the establishment of the Kingdom of God:

1. The coronation of the King Messiah by the Father

2. The Son’s Acceptance of the Kingdom from the Father’s hand

3. The Holy Spirit’s Revelation of the Redemptive Drama through His prophet (king David)

When we read the words “You are not far from the kingdom of God” we typically think that Jesus is giving them a positive appraisal for their extended response to His answer (vv. 32-33), but He then goes on to expose their flawed unitarian doctrine and their hypocrisy.

But why?

Because while they are not far from the Kingdom of God, that is Jesus Himself, they cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. There is a parallel structure that occurs here.

A. God is One (vv. 28-30)

B. Love Your Neighbor (v. 31)

[C. Superficial Agreement With Jesus (vv. 32-33)]

D. God is Holy Spirit, Father, and Son (vv. 35-37)

E. The Teachers of the Law Do Not Love Their Neighbors (vv. 38-40)

Ever wonder how the subjects Jesus is dealing with in Mark 12 are connected? Well, reading the question of the first commandment as an indirect way of dealing with the doctrine of the divinity of the Messiah sorta ties things together very neatly. doesn’t it?

What is at stake is Who God is. Is God One? Yes. But He is also Spirit, Father, and Son. In particular, the Messiah is God – He is the kingdom of God. And those who adamantly reject the divine Messiahship of Christ, Jesus’ words imply, do so not on theological grounds but on moral ones (cf. 12:38-40).

The doctrine of the Trinity is a difficult doctrine, no doubt; it is also one that we will always have a hard time wrapping our minds around. However, let’s not forget that it wasn’t the early church fathers who first taught it. Christ Himself expounded on the doctrine as early as Mark’s gospel.

-h

Thanks, Giving & Two Hours of Apologetics December 2, 2009

Once I had thoroughly engorged myself on turkey, ham, mashed potatoes, pie, pie, and, well, some more pie, I spent some time talking with my brother in law about a slew of topics. We started in politics, moved into history, touched briefly on economics, sociology and, before I had even noticed, we landed in theology/apologetics. And the question of whether or not I believe in the literal-historical truth of the book of Jonah came up, as it usually does in these kinds of conversations.

It went something like this:

T: “So do you think the Bible is, like, allegorical or literal? I mean, do you believe that a man was really swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it?”

H:“Yeah. I believe it to be literally-historically true.”

T: “Why? How?”

H: “Well, I believe in God. If God exists, the miraculous is neither impossible nor philosophically problematic.”

T: “Go on…”

H: “Okay. Well, you see…”

And what followed was a (roughly) two and a half hour discussion about the Bible, God, and the reason why Christ’s death was an absolutely necessary historical event.

But it began with the question of the miraculous. So I’ll pose it you:

On what grounds can we justifiably believe in the miraculous (specifically, the miraculous events of the Bible)?

My answer was twofold:

1. The existence of God

&

2. The self-revelation of God to Israel/in Christ

The Existence of God

Before fully engaging in discussion concerning the plausibility and/or possibility of the miraculous, I think it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that while we are at a loss to explain how the miraculous events of the Bible may have taken place, this doesn’t ipso facto negate the plausibility/possibility of the miraculous. Seeing as our scientific knowledge is severely limited – being at best a “working knowledge” of a fraction of the known universe, and being the product of inductive reasoning (i.e. being subject to constant revision, alteration, etc) – could it be that that the miraculous events of the Bible perhaps did not “break”, “defy”, or “bend” any known physical laws, but acted in accordance with such laws as they (i.e. those physical laws) operated under historically unique conditions?

Maybe. Maybe not. We aren’t in a position to make an absolute judgment on the matter – either affirmatively or negatively.

My point, to put it succinctly, is simply this: Because our knowledge of the universe is not exhaustive, whether or not the miraculous events of the Bible took place cannot be conclusively decided upon the basis of our knowledge of how the universe works. Our inability to conceive of a “natural” explanation of how these events happened doesn’t invalidate them. And although this fact may not be enough to fully establish that the miraculous events did occur, it does reveal the shaky foundation upon which naturalistic criticisms of the miraculous lay. The implausibility and/or impossibility of the miraculous occurring cannot be decided upon absolutely by reference to our limited knowledge of how things work.

Again: We aren’t in a position to make an absolute judgment on the matter – either affirmatively or negatively.

Although it does raise a question that begs for an answer from the skeptic:

If a “natural” explanation is, therefore, at the least plausible/possible, then denying the supernatural doesn’t ipso facto negate the possible historical reality (albeit under unique conditions that are irrepeatable in nature) of the miraculous events recorded in the Bible. And if this is so, which it is, then upon what grounds are the miraculous events described in the Bible denied?

See, how one responds to the question of the miraculous is not entirely dependent upon one’s knowledge of how things work, but also upon one’s metaphysical posture.

Does God exist?

If one concludes that God does exist, then the miraculous events recorded in the Bible are infinitely more plausible/possible.

If one concludes that God doesn’t exist, the plausibility/possibility of the reality of the miraculous still remains.

The Self Revelation of God to Israel/The Self Revelation of God in Christ

In Deuteronomy 4:32-39, Moses has something interesting to tell the nation of Israel just before he dies and they enter the promised land. We read:

³² “For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has happened, or anything like it has been heard. ³³ Did any people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and live? ³⁴ Or did God ever try to go and take for Himself a nation from the midst of another³⁵ To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD Himself nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? is God; there is none other besides Him. ³⁶ Out of heaven He let you hear His voice, that He might instruct you; on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words out of the midst of the fire. ³⁷ And because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them; and He brought you out of Egypt with His Presence, with His mighty power, ³⁸ driving out from before you nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land as an inheritance, as it is this day. ³⁹ Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Moses is reminding the people that their history is intentionally unique. These miraculous events weren’t everyday occurrences, but were given for the purpose of God’s revelation of Himself to Israel, which is important because we often lose sight of why the miraculous is recorded in the Bible. It isn’t simply for the sake of making us “Ooh” and “Ahh.” Instead, the miraculous events recorded in the Bible point to God’s special/irrepeatable action in the salvation of the Israelites, and to His general/constant interaction with His creation as Creator- i.e. His identity as the only true and living Savior/Creator God.

Following the Biblical narrative, we learn that Israel’s purpose is bring forth the Messiah, who would fully reveal God to man.

And how would He do this?

By special/irrepeatable miraculous events, the greatest of which would be His resurrection from the dead.

So how does this strengthen the case for the historical reality of the miraculous?

By underscoring the purpose-specific nature of the miraculous events recorded in the Bible. If the miraculous occurred for the sake of God’s self-revelation to/through Israel and in Christ to the all of humanity, then where is the problem one finds with the irrepeatability of the recorded events?

Now, I’m not affirming or denying that miracles presently occur, but I do think that the Bible gives us reason to believe that such miracles, seeing as the canon of Scripture is closed/finished, are no longer necessary. This is especially so when we consider that the author of Hebrews tells us that God has finally spoken to us/revealed Himself in the Person of His Son – the Lord Jesus Christ. He writes:

¹ God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, ² has in these last days spoken to us by His Son[...]

Heb. 1:1-2a

If God exists and desires to express His identity as Creator and Savior, then where is the problem?

Wouldn’t the very limited, irrepeatable nature of the miraculous events recorded in Scripture give an even stronger basis for taking the given record (i.e. the Bible) seriously?

-h

One Temple, Two Mountains & Seven Beatitudes December 1, 2009

¹ Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. ² And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. ³ Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
⁴ But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
⁵ Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, ⁶ and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

‘ He shall give His angels charge over you,’
and,

‘ In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”

⁷ Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”
⁸ Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ⁹ And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
¹⁰ Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”
¹¹ Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Have you ever noticed  that after coming up from the waters of baptism,  Jesus is immediately led into the wilderness? That after hearing God the Father proclaim “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17), we hear the devil tauntingly tell Him “If you are the Son of God…“?

And that after the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, He is “led up” by the Holy Spirit into a place of testing?

The text is riddled with opposites. Why?

We also read that:

• The Lord is taken up to the Temple’s pinnacle, then the devil tells Him to throw Himself down so that the angels would bear Him up.

• The Lord is taken to the top of an exceedingly high mountain and told to fall down and worship the devil, in order to be raised to political prominence by the devil.

Is this simply a literary device? Or is there something we can glean from these opposites?

What do we make of them?

When stripped of the crowds of people gathering at His baptism, dwelling in solitude in the wilderness – no crowds, no prophet, and the absence of God the Father’s mighty voice thundering from heaven – what did the Lord face?

Satan presented Christ with opportunities to lift Himself up to (1.)spiritual and (2.)political Messianic power. Satan brought Christ quick fix alternatives to His present situation. Jesus could wait for the Father or take matters into His own hands…

But what did He do?

He waited, in the Spirit and in the Word and in faith, for the Father.

I thought a bit about this passage today.

…about how the enemy’s desire is for us to fall one way or another (either by presumptuously sinning in order to gain the attention of God or by elevating worldly riches and glory above God and, thereby, worshiping His enemy)

…about how sometimes it seems to me that God is absent from the wilderness, when in fact He has “led me up” by His Holy Spirit into the wilderness

…about how God wants me to wait for Him and not accept sinful alternatives

…about how the enemy can tempt us to perform religious deeds while in the wilderness in order for us to gain the attention of God, or prove our sonship to ourselves (or others)

…about how the enemy sought to replace God’s approval with the approval of men

And I thought about what our Lord’s outcome was…

Matthew 5:1

¹ And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.

After these literal “ups and downs,” the Lord is ministered to, and raises Himself and lowers Himself for others, teaching:

³ “ Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴ Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
⁵ Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
⁷ Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 5:3-9

Those who are blessed aren’t those who take up into their own hands what is only God’s to handle and give, but those who know they have nothing in themselves – those who must wait upon God, who hunger and thirst after righteousness, and not temporal satisfaction.

To summarize all this, I learned something profoundly simple:

Wait on the LORD;
Be of good courage,
And He shall strengthen your heart;
Wait, I say, on the LORD! (Ps. 27:14)

God will bring me/you/us out of the wilderness in His own time.

-h

Universals or Particulars? Pt. 2 November 26, 2009

(Continued from Universals or Particulars? Pt. 1)

The problem that I found with this author ’s article was not that he was attempting to engage Hinduism in a non-aggressive manner, but that he did so at the expense of drawing a sharp dividing line between Christian truth and Hindu beliefs. In an increasingly apostate universalist-syncretist-antinomian post-postmodern American “Christianity,” should we be blurring such foundational distinctions? Are we not, thereby, adding to the self-refuting, unconsciously ironic “dialgoue” that would seek to eliminate Christ as we know Him (i.e. as the Word of God presents Him) – the absolutely unique, unmatched, Creator become flesh to save  man from the wrath of God Almighty – in order to be more accepting, inclusive, and “mature”?

This is a serious consideration that I don’t see being made much in many of today’s churches. We’ve tried to appeal to shared particulars instead of making our appeal to universals.

Paul’s speech to the Athenian men is an appeal to universals that then leads into particulars about the Christian faith. Why have we inverted the movement? Have we uncritically accepted calls to “find common ground” with others who really share no common ground with us when it comes to matters of doctrine?

I think we have.

A great example of this can be found in how the author of this article chooses to end his section on Hiduism. He briefly touches upon Hinduism’s idolatry, urging Christians to not be too harsh in criticizing their behavior. Why? Because Israel, like the Hindus, practiced idolatry throughout its history and we don’t go ballistic on them, do we? No, he claims, but we actually appreciate this fact about them. Quoting from a pastor who shall remain nameless, he writes:

“…On a question of this nature the light, which is shed by modern historical and literary criticism of the Bible, is very helpful. Thanks to the patient research and industry of modern scholars, we have come to realize that growth of the Old Testament religion was continually impeded by lapses into idolatry…Gradually they were weaned away from idolatry…In course of time the children of Israel became entirely free from the temptations to idol worship and full aware of the nature of God as Spirit.

We do not dismiss the Old Testament because the story of Israel is tainted with idol worship. On the other hand, we find much value in the slow and toilsome growth of Israel towards clearer light about the nature of God and about the method of worshiping Him. The bhakti religion of India may be considered to belong to the spiritual level that is represented in the Old Testament. The faith and devotion and love which have been lavished on idols must be directed towards the one true God…” (p. 88)

Really? A “pastor” is claiming that Israel came to faith progressively, via a cognitive evolutionary process that really involves the acquisition of new information and the repeated practices that relate individuals/nations to said acquired information (i.e. new rituals)? A “pastor” made these egregious errors regarding the Biblical distinction between those who truly had faith and those who didn’t? A “pastor” disregarded the basic teaching of the New Testament regarding unregenerate man’s antagonistic posture toward “the one true God” (see, Romans 1 & 3)?

Really?

Yes, really.

In an attempt to evangelize, some have sought “common ground” that just doesn’t exist, subordinating the New Testament’s own theological analysis of the Old Testament (that is to say, God’s commentary upon/lucid explication of God’s record of God’s people) to postmodern concepts in the process, and boldly contradicting some very plain teachings.

And this is something that is, unfortunately, becoming more and more commonplace. So now is a good time to state the following facts:

1. All human beings are not children of God. According to the Bible, only those who have been born-again/born-from-above can legitimately be called the children of God(cf. John 3:1-8 & 1 John 3:1-3).

2. One either has saving faith, or does not. This is not a concoction bequeathed to us present day believers by Calvin and Luther, it’s purely Biblical (cf. Romans 4 & Galatians 4, et al). “Coming to faith” is not a cognitive evolutionary process, it is a gift from God posterior to regeneration. As R.C. Sproul wonderfully articulates, Regeneration Precedes Faith.

3. A denial of points (1.) and (2.), which are foundational tenets of Biblical Christianity, is intolerable heresy akin to the universalist-syncretist-antinomian (i.e. heretical) nonsense spewed by those of the Emerging Church movement.

Now, I’m not advocating that you burn your favorite Ravi Zacharias book, or call the author of this article a heretic. In fact, on the basis of the other articles in the book I would actually recommend this book to those who are looking to familiarize themselves with the contemporary challenges that Christians will face on the mission field.

What I am doing is asking you to be discerning, and to not compromise truth for the sake of winning converts to a Christ-less Christianity, perpetuating a religious money machine, or pleasing the world.

Why not follow Paul who presented the validity of his case on the basis of universals and then proceeded to explain and defend the distinct, pure, and absolutely unique truth of the gospel?

Why not follow in our Lord’s steps and divide truth from error, and the children of God from those who have no place in His family?

h.

The Passage Caught in Adultery? November 25, 2009

¹ But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
² Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. ³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

For those who haven’t been introduced to wonderful world of textual criticism yet, John 8:1-11 is a good place to start. The question of the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae, i.e. John 8:1-11 as it is referred to amongst scholars, has caused quite a bit of controversey.To summarize the entirety of why the debate exists, we can point to two main factors:

1. It’s late appearance in the “best” manuscripts

&

2. Its supposed usage of “non-Johannine” (i.e. “non-John”) words.

These two factors, apparently, caused the entire passage’s authenticity to be called into question by scholars of the rank and association of men like John Calvin and Bruce Metzger (to name but two among the many who would argue against it). [For a more in depth history and analysis of the Pericope Adultera problem, see here.]

Yet, what I find humorous and disturbingly problematic is the fact that their accepted method of evaluation/interpretation has not been called into question. The incident, its position in the gospel narrative, and the reliability of the record are all called into question – but the method of evaluation/interpretation used by such scholars who consider it to be a later scribal interpolation is assumed to be valid and reliable.

But is it?

Several months ago, I read through John’s gospel as intently and closely as I could, and found that the book evidences a very rigid structure that surfaces repeatedly and which serves as the vehicle whereby John communicates his opening statement concerning the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is, John uses the structure of his gospel to communicate the simple truth that Jesus is the Word of God (i.e. the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament).

Some main structural features of John’s gospel are:

1. Symbolism (e.g. the wedding at Cana where the “new wine” Christ makes is considered superior to the “wine at first” by the master of the feast, pointing to Jesus’ wine of the new covenant as superior to the old covenant)

2. Typological Fulfillment (e.g. “I am the bread which came down from heaven…” [John 6], “…as Moses lifted up the serpent…” [John 3], et al)

3. Narratival Incremental Repetition (e.g. The healing of the blind man in John 9 identifies Christ with increasing clarity as the narrative draws to a close – first identifying Him as a “man” [v. 11], then as a “prophet” [v. 17], and finally as “Lord” [v. 36 & v. 38] – which narratively parallels his physical healing and the blindness of those who cannot see their own sin or see that Jesus is the Messiah). Literary scholar Robert Alter touches upon incremental repetition’s appearance throughout Scripture as a vehicle for the communication of ideas (i.e. as an indispensible literary technique) in his works, primarily The Art of Biblical Narrative.

There are more, but I think these suffice to show that what would contribute to a better, wider evaluative/interpretive methodology would be the consideration of the text at hand as a piece of literature. The problem with the conclusions drawn by Calvin and Metzger, let’s say, is that they fail to see that the Pericope Adulturae is structurally indispensible to the gospel of John.

John’s gospel is rife with incremental repetitions that typically occur in triplets. This something we also find in the book of Revelation 5, for example, which contains three doxologies: (a.) the Lamb’s worthiness to open the scroll (vv. 8-10), (b.) the Lamb’s worthiness to receive the seven fold blessing (vv. 11-12), and (c.) the worthiness of the Father and the Lamb to receive worship (vv. 13-14).

The pericope in question meets all three literary markers as a (1.)symbol of the marriage of Christ and the church, (2.) the fulfillment of God ordained marriage-types found in the book of Genesis, and (3.) completes a macro-narratival incremental repetition.

Symbolism

John’s portrayal of Christ as the bridegroom is first hinted at in John 2:1-12, where the bridegroom is identified as being the agent responsible for bringing out the best/new wine at the wedding feast, when in reality it is Christ who is responsible. Subtle? Sure, but John’s intention is pretty clear. Jesus is the promised bridgegroom/Messiah. And if isn’t clear enough, he goes on to record John the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as the bridegroom in John 3:29-30:

²⁹ He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. ³⁰ He must increase, but I must decrease.

On a level for the plain eye to discern, John is identifying Jesus as the Bridegroom. This symbol, drawn from the Old Testament, is also used in the book of Revelation where John refers to the bride of Christ as the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven (Rev. 19:1-10), and is characteristic of the entire Biblical portrait of Christ (e.g., cf. Ps. 45).

Typological Fulfillment

As I mentioned earlier, John’s allusions and direct references to the Old Testament are many (perhaps too many to list here!), and find their explication, therefore, in a careful assessment of those texts in question. This is the case for John 2, for instance, which mirrors Gen. 40 in a variety of ways but perhaps most powerfully in its usage of the wine/bread><blood/broken body motif which foreshadows the Last Supper, but also helps John identify Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. More time can and should be devoted to the comparison of John 2 and Genesis 40, but for now I’ll draw out the basic parallels between the two.

1. Wine/Bread: In Gen. 40:1-15, the butler’s dream about wine appears first; in vv. 16-19 the baker’s dream about bread, i.e. his body, follows. In John 2, the first focus is wine (vv. 1-12), the second is Jesus’ body (vv.13- 21). John follows the basic structure of the passage in Genesis.

2. Three Days: Gen. 40 hinges upon a three day period prior to the release of the butler and the baker (40:20, et al). In John, the wedding in Cana occurs on “the third day”, and Jesus makes an explicit reference to the resurrection occurring after three days (respectively, 2:1 & 19)

3. The Satisfaction of the King/The Broken Body: In Gen. 40, the Pharoah is served wine by the butler, with whom he is pleased, while the body of the baker is hanged. In a similar fashion, John 2 presents us with the “master of the wedding feast” who is well pleased with the new wine given by Christ on the third day, and Jesus speaks of the breaking/hanging/crucifixion of His body and His resurrection on the third day.

I think these three points are sufficient to show that John is very purposefully aligning his narrative record with Genesis 40 in order to elicit typlogical fulfillment. Jesus is the true butler who poured out His own blood to satisfy the wrath of God, and whose blood continually speaks on our behalf before the Father (cf. Hebrews 9:11-15). He is also greater than the baker, His body being broken for our sins and not His own, when He was condemened to “hang” upon the tree of Calvary (cf. Galatians 3:10-14).

On this basis, it’s easy to see why John parallels the three “God-Ordained marriages of Genesis” with the three “Christ-Sinful Woman Narratives”  in his gospel (which I’ve written a little about here). Here is an unfortunately brief comparative typological analysis.

1. [Adam/Eve (Gen. 2:15-25)]/[Jesus/Mary (John 19:31-37 & 20:11-17)]: Both events are situated in a garden, containing a Gardener (Adam is really a gardener, while Mary supposes Jesus is the Gardener), after the sides of both males have been pierced. Moses tells us that man will cleave unto his wife; Jesus tells Mary not to cling unto Him, for He has not yet ascended to His Father. The typological significance of John 20:

2. [Isaac/Rebekah (Gen. 24)]/[Jesus/Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)]: Both events feature a woman being brought to the promised Seed (Isaac and Jesus) by men who belong to the household of Abraham (in Gen. 24, the servant (Eliezer) is spiritually, as a man of faith, a member of Abraham’s household, whereas those who bring the woman caught in adultery to Jesus are spiritually unrelated to Abraham – cf. John 8:31-59 and cf. Galatians 4:21-31); also, in both narratives the woman’s history is presented to the male in question by the aforementioned servant[s].

3. [Jacob/Rachel (Gen. 29:1-14)]/[Jesus/Woman at the Well (John 4)]: As Jacob traveled to meet Rachel, so Christ was traveling to meet the Samaritan woman at the well (who references Jacob’s well and questions Christ as to whether or not He is greater than Jacob), and as Jacob offers to roll away the stone covering the well and water Rachel’s sheep, so Christ speaks of the outpouring of His Holy Spirit (which succeeded His rolling away the stone that covered His own tomb).

Narratival Incremental Repetition

As I briefly mentioned above, one manner of incremental repetition can be found within a particular narrative (e.g. the blind man’s gradual ability to truly see Christ as Lord and Messiah is aided literarily by the use of incremental repetition, see above). However, another usage incremental repetition can be found in entire narratives. There are three of which I’m aware.

1. Bread Breaking Narratives: There are three bread breaking scenes that incrementally climax in John 21. These are: (1.) The feeding of the five thousand in John 6, (2.) The Lord’s supper in John 13, and (3.) The Lord’s breakfast in John 21.

2. The Resurrection Narratives: There are three resurrection narratives that climax in, you guessed it, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. These are: (1.) The near resurrection of the Nobleman’s son in John 4, (2.) The resurrection of Lazarus, and (3.) The resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

3. The Christ-Sinful Woman Narratives: Seeing as I’ve already gone over these, I’ll just speak about the incremental climax. John’s presentation of Christ as greater than Jacob, and as the truly only begotten Son who, unlike Isaac, was truly sacrificed by the Father, climaxes in his presentation of Jesus as the Last Adam who side was pierced and who purchased His bride thereby – the true Son of God who, unlike Adam, fully obeyed the Father and now will never die.

Final Remarks…

There is much more I could write here, but time is against me. My point in this blog was simply to elucidate the structure of John’s gospel in the hopes of creating much needed research, on behalf of textual scholars, into how macro-literary structure orders language use and not vice-versa. Whether or not the passage is included in the early manuscripts is nearly inconsequential once we seriously examine the literary work on its own terms and not according to methodological presuppositions that, in truth, severely limit the criteria for determining the authenticity of a given text of Scripture.

Questioning one’s own methodological presuppositions is vital to a healthy consideration of complementary, not altogether alternative or contradictory, data when facing a problematic portion of Scripture.

If we just stick to our own methodologies, in spite of what data/evidence another methodology may yield we’re no different than these guys…

- H -