All posts by Michael O'Neil

About Michael O'Neil

Hi, thanks for stopping by! A couple of months ago a student gave me a cap embroidered with the words "Theology Matters." And so it does. I fervently believe that theology must not be an arcane academic pursuit reserved only for a few super-nerdy types. Rather, theology exists for the sake of the church and its mission. It exists to assist ordinary believers read and enact Scripture in authentic ways, together, and in their own locale, as a local body of faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. I love the way reading and studying Scripture and theology has deepened my faith, broadened my vision, enriched my ministry and changed my life. I hope that what you find here might help you along a similar path. A bit about me: I have been married to Monica for over thirty years now and we have served in various pastoral, teaching, missions and leadership roles for the whole of our lives together. We have three incredible adult children who with their partners, are the delight of our lives. For the last few years I have taught theology and overseen the research degrees programme at Vose Seminary in Perth, Western Australia. I also assist Monica in a new church planting endeavour in our city. In 2013 my first book was published: Church as Moral Community: Karl Barth’s Vision of Christian Life, 1915-1922 (Milton Keynes: Paternoster). I can say that without a doubt, it is the very best book I have ever written and well worth a read!

Susanna Wesley’s Trinitarian Theology

Theology, ,

Susanna_WesleyFred Sanders (The Deep Things of God, 68-69) tells a wonderful story of Susanna Wesley’s trinitarian theology:

“Her journal from about 1710 includes an impressive entry that shows how seriously she took the doctrine. She began by accusing the great Aristotle of falling into error when he taught that the world eternally existed along with God, “streamed by connatural result and emanation” from all eternity. She mused that “this error seems grounded on the true notion of the goodness of God,” which Aristotle “truly supposes must eternally be communicating good to something or other.” It is true that the Supreme Being is infinitely good and that his goodness is of a kind to be always inclined to give itself away to others. Without any further information, this speculation would demand an eternal world as the eternal recipient of God’s self-giving goodness. An eternally, essentially self-giving God would require an eternal world. But that sort of eternal world would make God dependent on the world for his own satisfaction. Without the world, God would be a frustrated giver.

“The conclusion, which Susanna Wesley found utterly unacceptable, would be that God depended on something outside himself to make possible his full self-expression. Pondering this mistake in the great Aristotle’s philosophy, Susanna mused, “It is his want of the knowledge of revealed religion that probably led him into it.” Aristotle’s problem came from the fact that he had no access to the revealed doctrine of the Trinity.

For had he ever heard of that great article of our Christian faith concerning the Holy Trinity, he had then perceived the almighty Goodness eternally communicating being and all the fullness of the Godhead to the divine Logos, his uncreated Word, between whose existence and that of the Father there is not one moment assignable.

“Susanna Wesley’s skirmish with Aristotle is a pretty tidy speculative engagement with the philosopher, and it is worth remembering that Susanna was not a theology professor but a full-time homeschooling mother when she wrote it. Little John Wesley was probably about seven years old at the time Susanna recorded these thoughts in her personal devotional journal. She obviously had a lively intellect and a mind for what mattered. What mattered, in her well-formed evangelical Trinitarianism, was that the deep Trinitarian background of the gospel stayed firmly in place so the astonishing graciousness of God’s free grace could be seen for what it is. … She knew that the gospel derives its power from the infinite background of who God is.”

A Sermon on Sunday – James 1: 19-27

Sermons

JamesMy studies in James over the last year and more are beginning to bear some homiletical fruit. For the last month I have been preaching out of James 1, one sermon at Mt Hawthorn Baptist Church on James 1:2-8, and three sermons covering the whole chapter at Harmony Baptist Church in Mosman Park. Today is part three of this little series.

*****

Introduction
Roof story – looked okay but was not. When I stepped on it, it started to give beneath my feet. The roof structure lacked integrity, being flawed, internally compromised. Integrity refers the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished; a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition. What you see is what you get: it is honest, it is true.

James, too, is concerned with that which is true. He is very concerned with true Christianity, genuine religion, authentic spirituality, a faith which has integrity, a theme which comes to the fore in the climax of chapter one.

Before launching into today’s text, however, let’s retrace some of the ground we have already covered in the last two weeks:

  • When Troubles Come – Pressure from the outside intended to destroy our faith. Our response: Stand fast! Persevere! We persevere in praise and thanksgiving, in prayer and faith, and we stand fast together; and all this because God is the generous God, single-minded in his goodness.
  • When Temptations Come – Pressure on the inside which threatens to lure us away from God, his blessing and his purpose. Our response: Stand fast! Persevere! We persevere in love for God first and foremost, and in the new life God has given us, participating in God’s mission in the world, and looking forward to “the crown of life” in the world to come; and all this because God is only, ever and always good.

In our text today, James continues this theme addressing, as it were, two big questions:

  1. What is the character of this new life? What is it like?
  2. How do we live this new life?

James 1:19-25                           
My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent, and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom and continues (perseveres!) in it – not forgetting what they have heard but doing it – they will be blessed in what they do. (Or, “not forgetting what they have heard, but being a doer of the work…”)

Receive the Implanted Word
How do we live this new life that God has given? By the same means by which it began—the Word of God who “has given us birth through the Word of truth” (v. 18). Thus James says, “Get rid of all moral filth, and the evil that is so prevalent, and humbly accept the word planted in you which is able to save you” (v. 21).

  • The word implanted is designed to grow and bring forth a harvest of righteousness in our lives.
  • KJV: the “engrafted” Word. Fruit-tree analogy – grafting the new life of God into our lives. How? Through reading, hearing and meditation of the Scriptures.

But be “doers of the Word, not hearers only!” Meditation in the Scriptures leads to action. Those who only hear the Word without obeying it deceive themselves: their spirituality is not authentic.

James’ teaching here is an echo of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of Matthew 4:4: “One shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word which proceeds from the mouth of God.” According to Jesus, believers are to live by the Word of God, allowing God’s Word to speak to us, counsel us and guide us, direct us and shape us, as we orient our lives toward the presence, the purpose and promises of God. God calls us to lives shaped and moulded and trained by Scripture. The “forgetful hearer” simply “goes his way,” the word having no enduring impact or effect on his daily life. This forgetful hearer is headed for trouble—Matthew 7:24-27.

And so we come again to verse 25: “But the one who looks into the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts (or, a doer of the work), he shall be blessed in his doing.” James, in this verse, shifts his language from Word to “law,” and from being “doers of the Word” to “doers of the work.” What do these shifts mean? Quite simply, James emphasises the call and the demand of the gospel. In chapter two he will bring this out with great clarity: “faith without works is dead.” The gospel is not simply the promise of salvation in and through Jesus, but also the call to follow him. Many commentators believe that James considers that Jesus’ teaching constituted the law made new, that the “law” here refers to Jesus’ ethical teaching. It is clear that for James, real religion, authentic spirituality, is a matter of obedience to the Word of truth, the gospel, the teaching of Jesus, the Word of God, and that such obedience is crowned with blessing, both now “in the doing,” and with a crown of life in the age to come (v. 12).

What Is This New Life Like?
What “work” does James have in mind? What does it mean to be “a doer of the Word/work?” At this point James gets very specific and says very clearly what this “work” is:

James 1:26-27
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Here James identifies three characteristics of “real religion, authentic spirituality, and genuine faith”—the kind which goes beyond the performance of a few religious practices that do not have any enduring impact on our daily existence. These three characteristics are his major concerns and will be picked up in the rest of the letter.

  1. A New Community

Watch your words—tame your tongue! The most seemingly spiritual person in the world is not spiritual at all if they do not keep a tight rein on their tongue! How easily words slip out: words of frustration and anger, words of criticism, demeaning, shaming words. Perhaps James has in mind especially angry words:

James 1:19-20                                  
My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 

Importantly, however, James does not have an abstract interest in the tongue: one scholar has noted that there are 29 commands in this letter directly addressing speech ethics. This is a primary concern of James,’ and will occupy the main part of chapter 3, as well as re-appearing in chapters 4 and 5. But again, James’ interest is not abstract; he is concerned about the use of the tongue because of power to destroy the community of God’s people. Verses 19-20 are not just Readers Digest good advice! They are directed against those in the community who are at war with one another, expressing anger and malice toward one another, quarrelling and fighting with one another, and as St Paul says, biting and devouring one another. Sins of the mouth tear down the people of God. Failure to bridle the tongue, to speak wisely and with respect and care undermines genuine spirituality. Thus, for James, authentic spirituality involves being a genuine and loving community. Notice how many times James refers to his listeners using the term “brothers and sisters” (vv. 2, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14, etc.). The church is a new family, intimately related as siblings, and called to care for and respect one another. What a tragedy when families fight and hurt and desert one another!

But James takes his vision of community even further, in verses in this chapter we have not yet read:

James 1:9-11                                        
Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position. But the rich should take pride in their humiliation – since they will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business.

The poor and lowly can rejoice in their new position in Christ! They have been exalted by God into the highest place. Though their earthly circumstances have not yet changed, they may hope for the future when the “great reversal” takes place, when the lowly are exalted and the mighty are brought low (cf. Luke 1:51-53; 6:20-26).

Arguably much more difficult, the rich are also commanded to “take pride in” or boast in—their humiliation! In James’ day, the church was mainly composed of the poor. But if a rich man or woman became a Christian and a member of the Christian community, there was a real humiliation involved. Now they were identified with a socially despised and dishonoured group of people. Now they associated with the poor and the outcast, the disreputable and the unclean. Becoming a Christian involved real social downward mobility—and James tells them to rejoice!

Here James’ words take on a new twist: a social reversal has occurred – in the church. Although the great reversal in itself still lies in the future, it issues here and now in a radical transformation of one’s own perception of oneself, and in the community. Here and now there is a re-ordering of expectation, of desire, of value, and of relationships on account of the new reality which has arrived in Jesus, and which will be enacted in the eschatological judgement. Here and now the poor are welcomed as honoured, indeed, primary members of the kingdom community. Here and now the rich embrace humiliation, precisely by entering into solidarity with the poor and despised Jesus followers. The Christian community enacts on the historical level the hope to be realised in the kingdom of God. It is becoming a community in which one’s identity is founded, not on one’s socio-economic status, but on one’s status in Christ. A revaluation has occurred with the values and priorities of the earthly city giving way to the values and priorities of the heavenly city. James has a vision of the eschatological kingdom which exists not only in the future, but impinges upon the present and presses toward expression in the community of God’s people, here and now.

  1. A Community of Care and Compassion

James’ second characteristic of real religion is compassion—love in action, hands-on, sleeves-rolled-up care for the vulnerable in our midst. Just as God visited his old covenant people in order to rescue them, so God’s people are to visit and care for those in need. Widows and orphans were amongst the most powerless groups in the ancient world. It is, of course, legitimate to extend the metaphor in our age and location to those who are in need, though they may not be widows and orphans. I have been greatly challenged by Eugene Peterson’s rendering of this verse:

Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world.

The vulnerable in our society include the homeless and loveless. They may also be the mentally ill, the elderly, the physically disabled, the indigenous, the abandoned, the unemployed, the refugee or recent arrival. To be a “doer of the work” involves caring for those in our networks and our neighbourhood who are vulnerable.

  1. A “Clean” Community

Finally James zeroes in on our own moral purity and personal holiness. He calls his listeners to keep themselves “unstained from the world.” James is not a dualist; he believes that this is God’s world because God is the universal Creator and Father of Lights. Nevertheless, the “world” is here seen in its fallenness, in its organisation against the will, the ways and the wisdom of God.

It is clear that James envisaged a decisive turning away from sin, sinful patterns of life, and concrete sinful practices: Make no mistake! (v. 16). Put away all evil! (v.21). What kind of sins does James have in mind?  No doubt all kinds of sin. But his emphasis in this letter focusses on interpersonal sins, especially those of the tongue, selfish ambition in the community, and those which oppress or fail to give due heed to the poor. There is a real engagement in the world and yet at the same time a genuine separation from its values, commitments and practices.

There is need for mature wisdom here (v. 5), because sometimes there is tension between the first two characteristics of authentic spirituality, and the third. Can a community welcome and care for those who are not “clean”? Perhaps a way forward here, is to apply Jesus’ wisdom from Mark 9:50: “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.” We can be strict on ourselves and gentle and kind toward others. Too often churches have this the wrong way around.

Conclusion
Two big questions:

  1. How do we live this new (Christian) life? By receiving (and doing) the Word. By being doers of the Word and of the Work.
  2. What is the nature of this new life? A life in welcoming, caring community in which we seek to love, trust and serve God together, and become vessels of his goodness in the world.

The Top Ten

Uncategorized

TOP10A couple of days ago I marked the second anniversary of this blog. Over the last two years I have posted 252 posts on all kinds of topics, using a variety of styles. I have no way of tracking which have been most popular or most read. But here are ten that I have enjoyed the most. They are in no particular order.

  1. This first post was not written by me, but by one of our students at Vose Seminary: good stuff! Gunkel, Bultmann and Barth Walk into a Bar

  2. The second post came from reading Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice again. This time I read the two critical introductions that accompany the novel in the Penguin Edition, and discovered that being a reader always involves interpretation – whether of Jane Austen or of Scripture: On Being a Reader, Even of Scripture

  3. My studies in Psalms 9-11 were particularly insightful for me. My reflections here became the basis of a paper I later presented at ANZATS. An Ethics of Presence and Virtue Part 1 and Part 2

  4. I include a little auto-biographical info in this one, and reflect on one of my adolescent heroes: We are All Bohemians Now

  5. Our students at Vose are a constant source of inspiration and provocation (in a good and useful way). This post had its genesis in a Facebook discussion on the “Vose Students” page. Facebook theology is a good thing: Alive & Powerful: The Old Testament as the Word of God?

  6. Eberhard Busch is a renowned Barth scholar and biographer. His large biography of Barth is not really a biography as much as an exposition of Karl Barth’s remarkable life. I read it from cover to cover for the first time during my sabbatical and recorded my reflections in three parts: Karl Barth – A Remarkable Life Part 1, and Part 2, and Part 3.

  7. I have written a number of formal reviews of books on the blog. This one was one of the better reviews. It is to be published in Colloquium  some time this year: Book Review: Reformed Theology (Allen)

  8. Another book I read during my sabbatical, or at least started then, was Roger Olson’s The Journey of Modern Theology. This is a big and well-written exposition of the major shifts and trends in theology from the eighteenth century to the present. Olson uses the image of a “ghost” to describe the powerful and ongoing influence of Hegel in modern theology. I discuss it in “No Worldless God!” The Ghost of Twentieth-Century Theology

  9. Recently a student who enjoyed one of my units in theology also complained: Theology is too Hard! This was my response to him.
  10. Other posts from time to time include a little humour, criticism of various theological positions, some social comment, notable quotes, book notes, etc. One of the things I have enjoyed is discovering some poetry. I haven’t included much of it here, but here are a few examples: Preaching the Atonement with John Donne; or at Christmas, An Advent Poem, or finally, An (Unrequited) Love Poem.

Hope you enjoy revisiting some of these!

Two Years of Blogging

Uncategorized

Why BlogTwo years, 252 posts, somewhere in the vicinity of 153,030 words (allow a margin of error of a few thousand), and many, many hours, maybe more than I anticipated.

When I started this blog, I did so for myself rather than for any putative readership. Of course I hoped for readers and hoped that not only would some people find my writing interesting enough to return, but that some might even find it helpful. Whether that is the case, I cannot say. Certainly I do not get many comments, but from what I can tell, the trend in the last few years is that people on rarely comment on blogs nowadays. Even bloggers who used to have quite a number of commentators now report far fewer. There are exceptions, of course. Some, such as Scot McKnight, Rachel Held Evans, and Roger Olson seem to have maintained their following over the years.

Google Analytics tell me I get between 750-900 visitors most months, but of that, only 25-35% are return readers. The rest could well be robots, or so someone told me. My son has told me that from time to time I have had nasty hackers attacking the blog, but I am totally oblivious to such things! Still, I am heartened by the number who apparently return – blessings on you!

My purpose in starting the blog, as I stated earlier, was for me: to record some of my own thoughts in digital format, to keep some book notes and Scripture studies, and mostly, to develop habits, skills  and content in writing.

How have I gone? All in all I am quite happy with how the blog has developed. The backbone of the blog has turned out to be Scripture studies, which I try to publish most Sundays. I started with Psalms and only got to Psalm 11, but have had a short newspaper piece published from my studies of Psalms 9-11, have delivered a paper at a national conference on these Psalms, and aim to write it up for publication in an Australian journal. The editor of the journal has not seen it yet, but has encouraged me to submit it.

I started my James posts to contribute to an online bible commentary which started with some enthusiasm but now has fallen into a hole. I don’t hold much hope for that project which is unfortunate; I think it could have been a blessing. Still, I kept my word to the editors and finished my commentary on James 1, and it is on the website – one of the few finished chapters last time I looked. I have been encouraged to continue my study through James, and who knows, maybe in time I will be able to publish a “commentary for preachers” or something similar. Tell you what I have learned, however: I am not a professional New Testament scholar! Tell you something else: I have been very deeply challenged by this intensive, extended engagement with James.

My studies in Bruce McCormack’s work also resulted in a paper delivered at ANZATS last year. It needs more work, but I would like to publish it. I have also written several formal reviews which will be published in Australian journals in the near future,as well as a number of posts on matters of interest to me especially to do with the nature of Scripture, hermeneutics, theological interpretation, Karl Barth, and novels.

Will I continue to invest time and energy in this? Is it worth it? I find I am not as disciplined as I would like to be in getting my reading noted and reviewed, mainly due to time pressures and because I am a slow writer. The main thing I wanted to do was develop habits of regular writing, and the Sunday posts especially, have helped me to write thoughtfully, regularly, systematically and with focus. I intend to continue this work.

I have not been as successful in applying this same kind of rigor with respect to theological topics. That will be my aim in the next year: to become more focused on some particular writing projects that may then develop into something more substantial. I guess that may limit the appeal of what I do, but hopefully will help me become more fruitful in this work as a ministry and as an academic pursuit.

Again – to those who visit from time to time, perhaps even regularly: thank you! I hope that what I do may continue to prove worthy of your time and attention.

On Thursday I will post a list of some of the best posts from the last two years, a Top Ten of sorts…

A Prayer on Sunday

Uncategorized

Prayer in St Peter's Square in the RainAlmighty God, who are ever present in the world without me, in my spirit within me, and in the unseen world above me, let me carry with me through this day’s life a most real sense of your power and your glory.

O God without me, forbid that I should look today upon the work of your hands and give no thought to you the Maker. Let the heavens declare your glory to me and the hills your majesty. Let every fleeting loveliness I see speak to me of a loveliness that does not fade. Let the beauty of the earth be to me a sacrament of the beauty of holiness made manifest in Jesus Christ my Lord.

O God within me, give me grace today to recognise the stirrings of your Spirit within my soul and to listen most attentively to all that you have to say to me. Let not the noises of the world ever so confuse me that I cannot hear you speak. Suffer me never to deceive myself as to the meaning of your commands; and so let me in all things obey your will, through the grace of Jesus Christ my Lord.

O God above me, God who dwells in light unapproachable, teach me, I beseech you, that even my highest thoughts of you are but dim and distant shadowings of your transcendent glory. Teach me that if you are in nature, still more are you greater than nature. Teach me that if you are in my heart, still more are you greater than my heart. Let my soul rejoice in your mysterious greatness. Let me take refuge in the thought that you are utterly beyond me, beyond the sweep of my imagination, beyond the comprehension of my mind, your judgements being unsearchable and your ways past finding out.

O Lord, hallowed by your name. Amen.

(John Baillie, A Diary of Private Prayer, 73, adapted)

 

Hugh Latimer on Preaching

Uncategorized,

Hugh_LatimerOne of the martyrs of the English Reformation was Hugh Latimer, burned by Queen Mary for his Protestant convictions and activity. Formerly bishop of Worchester, Latimer “made considerable efforts to preach in a style that could appeal to ordinary people who were not expert theologians…He tried hard to offer them lively images to entertain and draw them with him, in a self-deprecatory manner” (Evans, The Roots of the Reformation, 435). He explains that he finds repetition helpful in teaching:

 I have a manner of teaching, which is very tedious to them that be learned. I am wont ever to repeat those things which I have said before, which repetitions are nothing pleasant to the learned: but it is no matter, I care not for them; I seek more the profit of those which be ignorant, than to please learned men. Therefore I oftentimes repeat such things which be needful for them to know; for I would speak so that they might be edified withal (in Evans, 436).

I remember a minister many years ago saying, “Good preaching is not in the pulpit, but in the pew.”

James’ Love Command – Victor Paul Furnish

Scripture, Theology, , ,

Victor Paul FurnishThe parenetic tract of James is a loosely arranged collection of traditional admonitions designed to provide practical moral guidance. The author believes that Christians are in constant danger of being corrupted by worldly standards and values (1:27). If one is a “friend” of the world he cannot be a “friend of God” (4:4). Truly to “love God” (1:12; 2:5) means to resist the allures of one’s base worldly desires (1:13-14). The author’s other and more famous formulation of this idea is: “faith without works is dead” (2:14ff.) (Furnish, The Love Command, 175).

In his discussion of the love command in James 2, Furnish asks whether James identifies love as the very essence of the Christian law. Can James, as Wendland has suggested, be called an “apostle of love”? Furnish answers his question in the negative:

It would appear that the commandment of Lev. 19:18 is regarded as one among many which are to be kept by the faithful Christian. In itself it does not constitute or even summarize the essence of the “royal law.” This phrase designates “the whole law” with its various commandments (v. 10).  (179-180)

Furnish argues that the terms “royal law,” “perfect law,” and “law of liberty” are synonymous terms, “used to characterize the whole Christian message of salvation” also referred to by the terms “word,” “the word of truth,” “the implanted word,” etc. (180-181). This means that James’ vision of Christian life, as Furnish understands it, “has a nomistic structure,” although he also argues that Christian obedience is not simply identified with keeping the Old Testament law: for James, only the ethical demands of the law are significant and relevant for the Christian (177). For Furnish, then, James does not refer to Leviticus 19:18 because Jesus taught it as part of the double-command: “it is explicitly commended as authoritative because it is scriptural, not because it is a command from Jesus” (177).

While this writer surely understands love of one’s neighbor to be a vital component of the Christian life, he hardly deserves to be called “an ‘apostle’ of love.” His exhortations proceed not from a declaration of God’s gift and demand of love but from his conviction that the “royal” and “perfect law of liberty” is the embodiment of wisdom. This wisdom is the essence of God’s gift, to be sought and received by faith and then exhibited in an upright life. … Paul’s ethic develops from his gospel that love is the controlling and sustaining power of salvation (the new age) already inaugurated in Christ’s death and resurrection. The ethical teaching of James stands in the wisdom tradition of Hellenistic Judaism. Obedience is not viewed as one’s acceptance and expression of Christ’s love but as performance of the new law. This is called “royal,” “perfect,” and the “law of liberty” because its commandments are understood to be exclusively ethical and to require concrete moral deeds. When it is held that “pure religion” is helping those in need (1:27), the point is not to exalt the love command as normative for all ethical action, but that religion finds its true expression in the moral life, not in the cultic (181-182).

Comment

Furnish evidently considers James as a Hellenistic work, probably later rather than early, and having its provenance in the Hellenistic rather than Palestinian world. He sees James’ understanding of the law as shaped by Hellenistic Judaism, evidenced in the terminology used: “law of liberty” is found first amongst the Stoics, then in Hellenistic Judaism; “perfect” is a term used in Judaism for the whole law (cf. Ps. 19:7); and there are precedents in Hellenistic Judaism for speaking of a “royal law” (180). This provenance diminishes the idea of James standing in a Messianic Jewish context decisively shaped by his elder brother.

His view of James as concerned with moral rather than cultic aspects of the law is certainly correct, and his understanding of James as standing in a Hellenistic wisdom tradition is intriguing; there is much in James that celebrates wisdom as God’s good gift, and which associates wisdom with moral virtue.

Nevertheless, James 2:5 does speak of those who “love God,” and also speaks of the basileia—the same word used to describe the “royal” law. Further, the association of the love command with mercy in 2:13—a text Furnish dismisses as “a separable maxim only loosely connected with the paragraphs to which it has been attached” (178), suggests that, contrary to Furnish, James views the whole section of 2:1-13 in terms of mercy—practical love expressed toward those in need. If this is the case, then the love of command of Jesus may well be seen in this text, which in turn leads us to commend Davids’ view rather than that of Furnish, that is, that James viewed the law, not simply as the whole Mosaic Law or at least the ethical aspects of it, but that law as it was mediated by Jesus, “the Old Testament ethic as explained and altered by Jesus… [i.e.] the teaching of Jesus” (Davids, 100). Then verses 10-11 are read merely as a rhetorical gesture rather than as James insisting that every aspect of the Old Testament (moral) remains binding for the Christian. Nor does this view require the loss of Furnish’s emphasis on James as standing in a wisdom tradition, but rather supports it, for in 3:17 that wisdom which is from above is “full of mercy and good fruits.”

Scripture on Sunday – James 2:13

Scripture, , ,

JamesJames 2:13
For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement.

Although we examined this verse last week, I want to linger over it another week, and particularly the idea of mercy which makes its first appearance in James’ letter, in this verse. Some commentators, noting the proverbial nature of the verse that we discussed last week, see it as a free-floating proverb that has little connection with the passage overall. For example, Victor Furnish suggests that the verse is “a separable maxim only loosely connected with the paragraphs to which it has been attached” (Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament, 178). Peter Davids agrees that 2:13 “originally existed as a free-floating proverb” (118), but disagrees with Furnish’s conclusion that it has little or no connection to the context. Regardless of whether the verse had a pre-history as a separate proverb, I must agree with Davids against Furnish; this verse brings the entire section of 2:1-13 to its climax, despite the fact that James has not previously used the term “mercy.” What is the origin of this term, and what significance does it have in this context?

According to Canales, “mercy has its roots in the OT idea of the infinite love of God for a helpless and needy covenantal partner” (Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, 736). In perhaps the most central creedal declaration of the divine character given in the Old Testament we hear, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6-7). This foundational declaration is cited and repeated time and again in the Old Testament as the cornerstone of the divine character (see, for example, Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 103:8-17; 145:8-9; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:2-3).

The Old Testament narrative of redemption therefore identifies God as a merciful God who has shown mercy to his people. This narratival portrayal of the divine character provides a twofold foundation for mercy as a moral imperative for the people of God. First, just as God is characterised by mercy, so God’s people are to be merciful. The imitatio Dei (imitation of God) is a key principle of Old Testament ethics. Second, just as God has been merciful to his people, so they, as the recipients of his mercy, are to show mercy in their relations with others. This moral imperative is particularly evident in several prophetic texts:

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8)

The word of the Lord came to Zechariah, saying:  Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgements, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another (Zechariah 7:8-10).

The Old Testament witness to the mercy of God and the concomitant responsibility that this lays on God’s people comes to expression especially in the teaching of Jesus. Jesus’ fifth beatitude is the positive equivalent of James 2:13: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy” (Matthew 5:7). Here, a merciful life grounds a promise of mercy in the judgement. This promise is made explicit in Matthew 18 in Jesus’ parable of the Unforgiving Servant, where the king says to the wicked servant, “Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?” (verse 33). Being a recipient of divine mercy obliges the recipient to show mercy to others in the same way that God has shown mercy to them. In Matthew 5:48 Jesus admonishes his disciples to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” thus insisting that God’s character is the measure of the Christian’s character. Significantly, Luke’s record of Jesus’ saying is, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). In these samples of Jesus’ teaching, the twofold foundation for Old Testament ethics is reiterated.

Further statements in the gospels indicate that Jesus understood mercy as a central characteristic of discipleship. In Matthew 9:17 he challenges his opponents saying, “Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” Later in the same gospel he rebukes them, “But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”, you would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7). He tears strips off them in Matthew 23:23: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.” Finally, in his parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks,

“Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:36-37).

All these texts show clearly that for Jesus, mercy is a central characteristic of both the Jesus tradition and the life of his followers as he envisaged it. The final example from the parable of the Good Samaritan is particularly significant because (a) it displays the practical nature of mercy, and (b) ties this practice of mercy to the Leviticus love commandment that one must love their neighbour.

Returning to James 2, then, I affirm that James’ words in verse thirteen have the closest connection with the preceding verses. In the face of partiality and prejudice within the congregation, in which the poor specifically, have been dishonoured, James insists on love of neighbour. This love, however, is to take the practical form of mercy. Mercy is that form of love which visits the orphan and the widow in their distress (1:27). That is, mercy is not simply an attitude but an action. It does not remain aloof and uninvolved in the face of the affliction and distress of others but is moved to help in practical and sometimes costly ways. It images, however poorly, the mercy of the merciful God who entered into our brokenness and misery making it his own in order to lift us into fellowship with himself.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Mercy triumphs over judgement.

Centenary – “The Righteousness of God”

Books, Theology,

young barth100 years ago this week—Sunday evening January 16, 1916—Karl Barth delivered a lecture at City Church of Aarau, Switzerland. The lecture, entitled “The Righteousness of God” is his first major piece of work after his break with the liberal theology of his student years. It is also the lecture that Barth chose to stand at the head of his first collection of occasional essays published in 1924. Two English translations exist, the first in The Word of God and the Word of Man (1928, 1956), and more recently a new translation in a critical edition by Amy Marga in The Word of God and Theology (2011).

The lecture is much like a sermon in its structure, rhetoric and passion, and includes potent imagery and thought. Barth in early 1916 is still operating with a Kantian understanding of conscience, and already evident is the kind of “process eschatology” (McCormack) that will emerge full-blown in his first commentary on Romans (1918/1919) and be decisively rejected in his second commentary on Romans in 1921. Thus in this lecture Barth is still emerging from the theology of his student years.

In my commentary on this lecture (see my Church as Moral Community, 58-64) I note that the lecture is a meditation on two wills, the will of God and human will. It is not an abstract reflection, however, on the age-old theological conundrum about the relation of divine and human willing, but is oriented rather to the form of life that emerges from each of these wills:

Whereas the absurd and senseless will of the world results in oppression and suffering, God’s will heard and recognised will result in ‘another life,’ and the arising of ‘a new world’. For this to occur, declares Barth, ‘we must let conscience speak for…it remains forever the place, the only place between heaven and earth, in which God’s righteousness is manifest’ (59).

Here are some citations from the lecture, taken from the earlier translation.

When we let conscience speak to the end, it tells us not only that there is something else, a righteousness above unrighteousness, but also—and more important—that this something else for which we long and which we need is God.…We make a veritable uproar with our morality and culture and religion. But we may presently be brought to silence, and with that will begin our true redemption (Barth, Word of God and Word of Man, 23-24).

Barth assails our fervent religious activity by which we endeavour to protect ourselves against God, and against the claim his righteousness makes on us:

What is the use of all the preaching, baptizing, confirming, bell-ringing, and organ-playing, of all the religious moods and modes, the counsels of ‘applied religion’…the efforts to enliven church singing, the unspeakably tame and stupid monthly church papers, and whatever else may belong to the equipment of modern ecclesiasticism? Will something different eventuate from all this in our relation to the righteousness of God?…Are we not rather hoping by our very activity to conceal in the most subtle way the fact that the critical event that ought to happen has not yet done so and probably never will? (Barth, 20, emphasis added).

Barth rejects in the most vigorous terms any form of Christianity which would isolate itself from the wider social context in which it is found. Privatised religion is escapist and self-indulgent in its orientation, and actually suppresses the righteousness of God which confronts humanity in conscience. The true church, and therefore, true Christianity, is that which arises when the voice of conscience is allowed to speak:

In the midst of the old world of war and money and death.…Lights of God rise in the darkness, and powers of God become real in weakness. Real love, real sincerity, real progress become possible; morality and culture, state and nation, even religion and the church now become possible—now for the first time! One is taken with the vision of an immortality or even of a future life here on earth in which the righteous will of God breaks forth, prevails, and is done as it is in heaven (Barth, 25-26).

The lecture itself is quite short and easily read. Although written 100 years ago in the midst of World War I, its message is still very relevant indeed. I found a copy of the new translation on Google books. I don’t know how those websites work, if they always show the same sections of the books, or not, but the whole lecture was there when I checked it. I highly recommend it!

Scripture on Sunday – James 2:13

Scripture, , ,

JamesJames 2:13
For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement.

In verse twelve James warned his hearers to speak and act in light of the coming judgement. This verse supports that warning and provides an understanding of the grounds upon which judgement will be exercised.

Some scholars (e.g. Davids, 118-119) suggest that the verse had a prehistory as a free-floating proverb which James now co-opts. Certainly the verse has the terse expression of a proverb, shifts from second person address in verse twelve to the third person here, and introduces a term (“mercy”) not used previously in the letter. Whether this proposal is true or not need not detain us here: the proverb fits the context perfectly. James’ common practice of linking verses by means of common terminology occurs here also, with the terms krisis (“judgement”) and poieō (“act, show”) appearing in both verses. Further, although “mercy” has not yet appeared in this letter, James clearly uses the terminology elsewhere in the letter (3:17), and in 5:11 follows the common Old Testament practice of ascribing mercy to the character of God.

The first section of the verse is the negative equivalent of the fifth beatitude in Matthew’s collection (see Matthew 5:7). Whereas Jesus stated the truth positively (“Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy”), James does so negatively: “For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy” (Hē gar krisis aneleos tō mē poiēsanti eleos). Here the basis of the coming judgement is whether or not one has been merciful toward others—precisely the issue at stake in James’ community, where certain members of the congregation have dishonoured the poor man (v. 6). Not only does mercy reflect the way that God is merciful (cf. 5:11), it is also a practical expression of the royal law which anchors this section (vv. 8-13), and further, a clear example of the kind of true religion which visits the orphan and the widow in their affliction (1:27). As such, James’ use of a new term here is entirely fitting. Indeed, the passage as a whole suggests that showing mercy to the poor is precisely what James means when he cites the love commandment in verse eight. God’s people “do well” (v. 8; kalōs poieite) when they “so act” (v. 12; houtōs poieite) in mercy. Conversely, those who do not “show mercy” (v.13; tō mē poiēsanti eleos) can expect nothing in the judgement. The idea that God might be merciless in judgement is a terrifying prospect, one which was more real to people in earlier ages than is usually the case today.

The second part of the verse is just three words in Greek: katakauchatai eleos kriseōs (“mercy triumphs over judgement”). I must admit being glad for finally reaching this phrase, as I have wondered about its meaning for many years. Katakauchatai (kata + kauchaomai) means to “boast against” or “override,” and so “triumph over” (Verwick-Grosvenor, 695; Vlachos, 83).

Does James mean that one attribute is superior to another in an absolute sense, especially with respect to the attributes of God? Although such an interpretation may be possible, it seems better, given the context in which James has developed his argument, to apply the phrase to human hopes in face of divine judgement rather than to a supposed hierarchy of attributes within the divine being. Whereas those who fail to show mercy cannot expect to receive mercy in the judgement, those who show mercy will find that they receive mercy. That judgement, which otherwise might legitimately have fallen on them, passes over them.

James’ argument raises at least two interesting questions. First, is he arguing for a kind of works-righteousness, whereby a person is justified by what they do rather than what Christ has done on their behalf? This is an argument with a long pedigree, and James will confront it directly in the second half of the chapter. Second, if my comment on this verse is legitimate, that is, that James sees in mercy the fulfilment of the love command, where did this view originate, and how adequate is it? Both these questions will be addressed next week and in future examination of the second half of the chapter.