Some Thoughts on the Context of Romans 9-11 (Part 2 of 4)

What It Means to be Israel

          After the Jews had been expelled from Rome by Claudius Caesar in about AD 49, there were several years when the Roman church necessarily developed along non-Jewish lines. When at his death in AD 54 Claudius was succeeded by Gaius Caesar (Caligula), the edict of exile was rescinded, and Jews who returned to Rome would have found a predominantly non-Jewish church. It makes both psychological and literary sense that a significant part of the Roman letter was intended to address the resulting tension. Both sides had adjustments to make, and Paul’s discussions about the role of the Torah and the meaning of Jewishness would have been especially apropos.

          We know that among early Christians the meaning of Israel was an important issue. The New Testament is replete with the use of traditional Jewish vocabulary to describe Christians, such as, “the Twelve tribes,” the “Diaspora”, “Israel” and “the Jews” (e.g., Ga. 6:16; Ja. 1:1; 1 Pe. 1:1; 2:9; Rv. 2:9; 3:9). Christian churches sometimes still retained the title “synagogue” for their assemblies (cf. Ja. 2:2, Greek text), and this usage continued into the post-apostolic period (cf. Shepherd of Hermas, Mandates, 11; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.6.1). 1 Clement, dating from about the turn of the 1^st century, was composed in a typical Jewish format, including a haggadah, while the Epistle of Barnabas, from about the same period, contains both haggadah (= lore, story, narrative) and halakah (= law, how things are done).  Clement of Rome sums up this viewpoint succinctly when he describes Christians as the righteous descendents of the ancient people of God (1 Clement XLV-XLVI). The question of the meaning of Israel has occupied the minds of later Christians as well. Some from the Reformed tradition often adopt a replacement theory, that is, that the Christian church replaced ancient Israel as the true Israel. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, opt for maintaining a tight distinction between Israel and the church, so much so that it can be properly stated that the distinguishing mark of dispensationalism is a belief in two peoples of God, separate and distinct.

          This question about the meaning of Israel must have loomed large for the constituents of the Roman church, especially if Christian Jews had returned to Rome only to find that the leadership in the Roman church was now composed of those who were non-Jewish. It may well be that some in the Roman church resented their return. In any case, the situation sharpened the question about who was the true Israel? Earlier in the letter, Paul reprimanded those Jews who claimed spiritual superiority because they had received the Torah (cf. 2:17ff.). At the same time, when he posed the question, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew?”, he responded with the emphatic, “Much in every way” (cf. 3:1-2)! Paul also stated in unambiguous language that the gospel of Jesus Christ was “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (cf. 1:16b). In Romans 9-11, thenn, Paul takes up the question about Israel in earnest.

Some Thoughts on the Context of Romans 9-11 (Part 1 of 4)

Paul and the Torah

          Up to the end of chapter 8 in his Letter to the Romans, Paul has called upon three individuals, each of whom illustrate solidarity with the larger human race: Adam, Abraham and Christ. The first two appear prior to the establishment of the nation Israel. Adam and Abraham were neither Israelites nor Jews.  Jesus of Nazareth, of course, was both Israelite and Jewish. Nonetheless, it is not Jesus’ Jewishness that looms most significant for Paul, but rather, his parallelism with Adam as the head of a new creation. Further, Paul has indicated that the Torah, divinely given at the time Israel was called out of Egypt to be a distinctive people, was nevertheless not intended as the means of righteousness. Instead, the Torah was given “that the trespass might increase” (cf. 5:20). To be sure, the Torah was spiritual, holy, righteous and good (cf. 7:12, 14a), but it lacked power in itself to accomplish that lofty ideal toward which it called the people of Israel (cf. 8:3). There is a significant contrast between some conventional views of the Torah and Paul’s view.

A Conventional View of the Torah

            In fact, since the law has told us not to covet, I could prove to you all the more that reason is able to control desires. Just so it is with the emotions that hinder one from justice. [ ] Thus, as soon as a man adopts a way of life in accordance with the law, he is forced to act contrary to his natural ways.  [ ] In all other matters we can recognize that reason rules the emotions. [ ] It is evident that reason rules even the more violent emotions… [ ] To the mind he gave the law; and one who lives subject to this will rule a kingdom that is temperate, just, good, and courageous. (4 Maccabees 2:6, 8, 9b, 15a, 23)

Paul’s View

            I would not have known what it was to covet if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet.’ But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. (Ro. 7:7-8) I would not have known what sin was except through the law. (Ro. 7:7a) The law was added so that the trespass might increase. (Ro. 5:20a)

Conventional View

            He [God] bestowed knowledge upon them, and allotted to them the law of life. (Sirach 17:11) He made him hear his voice, and led him into the thick darkness, and gave him the commandments face to face, the law of life and knowledge… (Sirach 45:5) Hear the commandments of life, O Israel; give ear, and learn wisdom! (Baruch 3:9)

Paul’s View

            I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. (Ro. 7:10)

 

Hence, Paul concludes that “what the law could not do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son” (cf. 8:3).

          If the meaning of the Torah was defined outside the conventional box, it follows that Paul’s interpretation of the meaning of Israel also falls outside the conventional box. It is the meaning of Israel that occupies Paul’s mind in Romans 9-11. Paul hinted about this earlier, when he said that true Jewishness was essentially inward, not outward (cf. 2:28-29). He added the assertion that the true offspring of Abraham were the people of faith—with or without the Torah (cf. 4:16-18). Everything that Paul has said about the Torah begs the question of the meaning of Israel. Some interpreters have read Romans 9-11 as almost incidental to the larger theological purpose of the Letter to the Romans. Perhaps the most striking example came from C. H. Dodd, who argued that these chapters were possibly a sermon Paul composed for some other occasion and decided to slip it into the Roman letter as an example of his preaching. Dodd contended that one could go from the end of chapter 8 straight to the beginning of chapter 12 without losing anything in the process. Such a view can hardly be sustained, since it fails to do justice to the larger argument of the book. In fact, it may not be too much to say that everything Paul has argued so far in Romans 1-8 leads the reader directly into the subject of Romans 9-11, where he addresses the meaning of Israel.

Moses, Deuteronomy and Josiah: Part 3 of 3

          Hilkiah, a priest, made a critical discovery relatively early in the reign of Josiah of Judah. The discovery of a scroll during repairs to the temple suggests that it might have been a foundation document (2 Kg. 22:3-8//2 Chr. 34:8-16). Foundation texts were well-known in the ancient Near East, documents including royal inscriptions and information to any king who might undertake a restoration of the building in future days. The Book of the Law might have been enshrined in such a foundation box or concealed in the temple walls. Alternatively, it could have been found in the temple archives. In the Kings record, it was simply called the “book of the Torah,” a title that is somewhat ambiguous, since presumably all the books of Moses were single scrolls (2 Kg. 22:8-10; cf. 2 Chr. 34:14ff.). However, when the scroll was read to Josiah and later read and interpreted by the prophetess Huldah, the king’s reaction was immediate and visceral. It was apparent from what was rehearsed that the national life of Judah was in serious violation of the statutes contained in this scroll, and the contents of the scroll became a powerful incentive for Josiah’s reforms, including a heart-felt renewal of the ancient covenant (2 Kg. 23:1-3). In accord with what was written in this scroll, Josiah directed a nation-wide purge of pagan elements. He burned all the implements dedicated to Ba’al and Asherah and did away with their priests. He dismantled all vestiges of the astral cult. He destroyed the shrines and altars of paganism, smashing them to bits, and he even carried his reforms beyond his national borders to the ancient high places of northern Israel. Finally, he instituted a Passover celebration that was unlike anything the citizens of Judah had seen since the period of the judges. All this sweeping reform was prompted by “the requirements of the Torah written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of Yahweh” (2 Kg. 23:4-24). The assessment of Josiah’s work was that “neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to Yahweh as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the law of Moses” (2 Kg. 23:25).

          While no title to the newly discovered book of the law was given in either 2 Kings or 2 Chronicles, virtually all interpreters conclude that it must have been some form of Deuteronomy. None of the scrolls of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers seemed likely to have caused such distress. The king’s anguished reaction to its contents, especially the threat of severe divine reprisals for disobedience, seem consonant with the curses of Deuteronomy 28. Further, the language “book of the Torah” is used in Deuteronomy about itself (Dt. 28:58, 61; 31:26; cf. Jos. 1:8). The law of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 made the king liable for maintaining moral leadership for the nation. Combined, all these factors makes Deuteronomy the most likely candidate for what was discovered by Hilkiah. The fact that the assessment of Josiah’s reforms was framed in words directly taken from the language of Deuteronomy 6:5 (cf. 2 Kg. 23:25) only strengthens this conclusion.

          How came this book to be deposited in the temple and effectively lost? Here, there are several theories. Some suggest that technically it was not lost at all but was a fresh composition. Collins and others bluntly conclude that “the finding of the book [was] a fiction, designed to ensure its ready acceptance by the people.” While he concedes that some earlier material may have been edited and incorporated into the book, the larger composition was the product of Josiah’s own scribes. Both Deuteronomy and the traditions in Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were either composed or edited from a Deuteronomic perspective at this time, and the process went on for some years even after Josiah’s reign ended at his death. Such a reconstruction not only would provide a rationale for Josiah’s reforms, it would explain the similarities between the Book of Deuteronomy and the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon, which are from about the same period.

          Other scholars, however, are reluctant to sever Deuteronomy so completely from the older traditions. Some suggest that the larger corpus of Deuteronomy was composed earlier in the northern kingdom before its Assyrian exile. Here, Deuteronomy’s origin was believed to be among priestly Levites or northern prophets who, in light of what was happening in the north, set down traditions in opposition to the prevailing Ba’al cult in order to stem the tide of apostasy. Fleeing southward after the fall of the northern kingdom, they brought with them their text, which was hidden in the temple, possibly during the dark days of Manasseh’s kingship in Judah, when Manasseh’s so thoroughly reversed the reforms of his father Hezekiah (cf. 2 Kg. 21:1-9). Indeed, during Manasseh’s reign, Jerusalem was filled “from end to end” with the innocent blood of all who opposed him (2 Kg. 21:16), which certainly would have been an understandable context for hiding a Torah scroll whose very existence might have meant life or death. The scroll presumably was hidden in the temple for preservation and only rediscovered during the safer period of Josiah’s reign when workers were refurbishing the central sanctuary.

          An even more conservative alternative to the above scenarios is the suggestion that Deuteronomy was composed in the time of Solomon as a direct rebuke to Solomon’s self-exaltation and apostasy (cf. Dt. 17:14-20; 1 Kg. 11:1-13). Deuteronomy is clear: the king of Israel must not elevate himself (he must be a “brother” Israelite), he must not amass a large chariot corps, and he must not surround himself with a large harem. All these things Solomon did! Deuteronomy, by contrast, shows that power in Israel would not be concentrated in any single individual, but spread through other officials, such as, judges (Dt. 16:18), priests (Dt. 18:5) and prophets (Dt. 18:15) as well as a king (Dt. 17:14ff.). Those who held offices as judges or kings were to be appointed by the people themselves, not some central figure (Dt. 16:18; 17:15), and the real authority for the nation lay not in any single person, but in the Torah itself (Dt. 31:10-13). Hence, the nation of Israelites was to be a true brotherhood living under the covenant of Torah. This primacy of the Torah explains the central role of Moses, who mediates God’s will by his speeches (cf. Dt. 4:14), and it is to be carried out by the people within their families (Dt. 6:7-9). Such a setting for Deuteronomy would be earlier and different in orientation than the context of the Josianic reforms. That Deuteronomy fulfilled an important role in Josiah’s reform need not be discounted, but the ideas in Deuteronomy are older and more primitive than a 7^th century BC context.

Moses, Deuteronomy and Josiah: Part 2 of 3

The upshot of all this is that there are several theories about the date of Deuteronomy’s literary composition, some of them compatible with a high view of Scripture and some not so compatible. Until the modern period, the Jewish and Christian consensus was that it was composed in the Mosaic Period, either by Moses himself or by those close to him. Indeed, when Hilkiah found the “Book of the Torah” in the temple, the Hebrew text describes it as having been given “through the hand of Moses” (2 Chr. 34:14). Only since the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries has this consensus been seriously questioned. Many conservative scholars still maintain this position, especially since Christ and other New Testament writers cite Deuteronomy as simply “Moses” (e.g., Mt. 19:8//Dt. 24:4; 1 Co. 9:9//Dt. 25:4; He. 10:28//Dt. 17:6). Of course, such references would still be true, even if Deuteronomy was compiled at a later date, so long as the historicity of the sayings were not called into question.

A second theory is that while Deuteronomy probably contains substantial units that go back to the time of Moses himself, the final form of Deuteronomy was not achieved until perhaps the time of Samuel or David. It is in this period that the centrality of the priest disappears and the centrality of the king appears (cf. Dt. 17:14-20). The political union of the Israelite tribes under a single king made the centralization of worship both possible and desirable, perhaps inevitable (cf. Dt. 12).

The third theory is currently the most widely accepted among historical-critical scholars—that Deuteronomy belongs to the 7^th century BC, where it became the motivating force behind Josiah’s reform. While many scholars hold to this position, they do not all carry the same assumptions. Some continue to attribute substantial portions of Deuteronomy to the time of Moses, preserved by oral tradition, and finally supplemented and compiled in the 7^th century. Others, more negatively, regard Deuteronomy as a pious fraud—that the speeches of Moses essentially were concocted and put into his mouth. Either way, the similarity between the suzerainty structure of Deuteronomy and the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon, who also was in the 7^th century, lend weight to this conclusion. The laws concerning the king (Dt. 17) and the centralization of worship (Dt. 12), not to mention the blessings and curses (Dt. 28), figure prominently in Josiah’s reforms. As mentioned earlier, some scholars argue that much of Deuteronomy was composed by Levites in the northern kingdom and brought to Judah after the exile of the northern tribes. Others theorize that it was composed in the south.

The most radical theory is that Deuteronomy was composed after the exile of Judah. Here, Deuteronomy is viewed as an idealistic, imaginative work composed after the kingdoms of Israel and Judah no longer existed. In reaching a conclusion about Deuteronomy’s author and date, two factors are very important to conservative scholars. While the book is formally anonymous (i.e., it does not name its composer outright), the essential historicity and authenticity of its narratives and speeches must be maintained. Such a view seems essential for regarding Deuteronomy as divinely inspired. To be sure, evangelical scholars are not opposed to seeing oral or written sources that may underlie the present form of Deuteronomy as well as the rest of the Pentateuch. Indeed, they are not necessarily opposed to an editorial process that extended from the time of Moses into the late monarchy. Still, they are not free to bring into question the historical claims of its content. If Deuteronomy says that Moses said such and such, then Moses said it. One should not assume, of course, that the words attributed to Moses are the equivalent to some sort of tape recording. It is more important to acknowledge that we have the voice of Moses in Deuteronomy if not the precise words of Moses. Perhaps an appropriate analogy may be found in the gospel sayings of Jesus, which vary from gospel to gospel and originally were uttered in Aramaic, though we have them in Greek. We accept that we have the voice of Jesus if not always the precise words of Jesus. Whenever and however Deuteronomy reached the final form in which it has been passed down to us, conservatives remain committed to the Mosaicity of the Pentateuch in general and Deuteronomy as a constituent part of it. J. Barton Payne, an older evangelical scholar but one who was sensitive to the broader issues, is representative when he says, “The term Mosaicity may refer to those parts composed by Moses—whether actually written down by him or not—such as the address in Deuteronomy 1:6—4:40 or the song in 33:2-39.” And again, “Still, it means that the rest of the words, which Scripture does not specifically assign to Moses, need not be attributed to him. These include [among other things]…the description of his death.”

Moses, Deuteronomy and Josiah: Part 1 of 3

Evangelicals have long had a struggle with the authorship of the books in the Pentateuch. Because they are called the “Books of Moses” and because various passages in the New Testament quote from them as “Moses”, they bristle when there is any suggestion that Moses may not have written every word or that the final form of these books may have had a lengthy redactional history. I remember when teaching at William Tyndale College, where I taught the course on the Torah, that this was a perennial issue fraught with uneasiness, not only from students coming from fundamental churches, but also from their parents and pastors. Unfortunately, even sincere Christians with a Biblicist point of view do not always pay attention to the actual texts themselves, sometimes giving a knee-jerk reaction that betrays a less than careful reading.

It should first of all be understood that a distinction should be maintained between historical events themselves and the documentation of those events in writing. The two may or may not be coincidental. If, for instance, a 21^st century writer sets down the history of India during the British Commonwealth, the modern reader would not suppose that he had fabricated his material out of thin air just because he was not old enough to have seen it personally. Similarly, there is no necessary requirement that the narratives about Moses and his teaching must have been codified while he was still alive or necessarily set down by Moses himself. Indeed, there are reasons for thinking this might not be the case, not the least of which is the account of his death at the close of Deuteronomy (cf. 34). Further, the closing verses of Deuteronomy that “since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses” presumes a hand later than Moses (34:10-12).

Sometimes, the point of view in Deuteronomy is as though the writer were standing in the mainland of Israel and looking over to the Transjordan, a perspective that seems to assume entry into the land. This point of view is especially to be seen in the handful of “across Jordan” passages that seem to speak of the land to the east of the Jordan as across the river (cf. 1:1, 5; 3:8; 4:41, 46-47, 49). Such language seems to presuppose occupation west of the Jordan, which of course could not have been possible until after the death of Moses. At the same time, there are even more passages using the same Hebrew expression that reflect the vantage point of standing in Moab to the east of the Jordan (cf. 2:29; 3:20, 25, 27; 4:14, 21-22, 26; 6:1; 9:1; 11:8, 11, 30-31; 12:10; 27:2, 4, 12; 30:18; 31:2, 13; 32:47). What should be recognized is that both these perspectives are embedded in the same book, the former in narrative sections that seem to have been written after the entry into the land, and the latter in speech sections that quote words that Moses said. This is no more than what one would expect for a document that describes the speeches of Moses but was compiled after Moses died.

The language in the covenant renewal section (Dt. 29) suggests that at least the exile of the northern kingdom was already complete when this passage was codified.

 

Therefore, Yahweh’s anger burned against this land, so that he brought on it all the curses written in this book. In furious anger and in great wrath Yahweh uprooted them from their land and thrust them into another land, as it is now.

                                                                                                Dt. 29:27-28

 

The editorial clause “as it is now” (literally, “as on this day”) clearly suggests a time far removed from Moses. Hence, it is not required that Deuteronomy be composed as a literary piece by Moses for it to contain authentic history about Moses.

At the same time, there are some passages describing Moses as writing, such as, 31:9, which refers to an unspecified section of law codes, 31:19, 22, (referring to chapter 32), and 31:24ff. (likely referring to the Decalogue). Such references suggest that portions were written out as smaller segments prior to the compilation of the whole. The rabbinical custom of referring to everything in the Pentateuch as the words of Moses, of course, was adopted by the writers of the New Testament, but this convenience of speech does not necessarily support the view that Moses personally penned the entire corpus. One can only speculate how long elements in Deuteronomy and other books in the Pentateuch may have been preserved as oral tradition before being codified. A generation later, Joshua is commanded to obey the “book of the Torah” (Jos. 1:7-8), a reference that seems to refer to the contents of Deuteronomy 5-26 or 5-30. Joshua is familiar with the law code that altars were not to be fashioned using an iron tool (Jos. 8:31; Dt. 27:5), and indeed, the whole ceremony in the Shechem Pass is based on the anticipation of this ceremony as described in Deuteronomy (Jos. 8:30-35; Dt. 27). Even later, Joshua is said to have drawn up decrees and laws which then were recorded in the “Book of the Law of God” (cf. Jos. 24:25-26), so it seems that Joshua, also, had a hand in the composition. Even later references also cite the “Book of the Torah,” expressions that clearly seem to refer to at least portions of Deuteronomy (cf. 2 Kg. 14:6//2 Chr. 25:4; Dt. 24:16). Certainly some of the prophets knew of law codes that are preserved in Deuteronomy (cf. Hos. 5:10//Dt. 19:14; Am. 8:5 and Mic. 6:10ff.//Dt. 25:13ff.; Am. 4:4//Dt. 14:28; Hos. 4:4ff.//Dt. 17:12), but whether all these things were from oral memory or references to a written document is unclear.

John 3, New Birth, and the Rabbis

Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5 NKJV)

When I was a teenager, I remember my pastor, O. C. Crabtree, teaching about the "new birth" passage in John 3 and emphasizing the confusion experienced by the Jewish leader Nicodemus about this powerful metaphor. Nicodemus asked "Must a man reenter his mother's womb?" Jesus chided Nicodemus' response:

"Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" (John 3:10 NKJV)

Seeing a teachable moment, the Rev. Crabtree asked his listeners, "Why should Nicodemus have been expected to understand what it means to be born again?"

I immediately - and I think unexpectedly - answered that Jesus borrowed the language of renewing by water and Spirit from the prophecies of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 36 and 37, the prophet utilizes the language of cleansing water and resurrecting spirit to describe the restoration of the exiled Israel.

That was a pretty good answer - except that it missed the first and guiding metaphor of John 3 - birth, or more specifically, rebirth.

Historically, most exegesis of the "new birth" passage centers on biblical images of bodily resurrection - thus my reference to Ezekiel 37 (The Valley of the Dry Bones). This is the most obvious biblical parallel, but resurrection is not exactly the same thing as rebirth. While there is certainly no suggestion of reincarnation found in the Hebrew Bible, the image of rebirth seems - at least to me - to be a richer concept than just reanimation of the physical body.

A closer parallel comes from the Jewish rabbis of the second century C.E. Rabbi Yose - no doubt Yose ben Halafta, the student of the great Rabbi Akiva and the teacher of Rabbi Judah the Prince, the compiler of the Mishnah (circa 200 C.E.) - offers this insight regarding converts to Judaism.

A proselyte who has converted [to Judaism] is like a child born (i.e., a newly born child).

Quite simply, the Jewish convert is "born again."

The rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud taught that the proselyte performed or submitted to three distinct acts of conversion: offering sacrifice, circumcision, and immersion in water (a washing ceremony for ritual purity).

Rabbi Yose seems to imply that such conversion brought a brand new start to the life of the convert. That is, the legal status of the convert completely changed. The convert is no longer accountable for past transgressions, neither is he any longer bound by former family obligations. Normal familial ties were severed - the convert was no longer considered the offspring of his biological parents, but now a child of Abraham and Sarah - thus a child of promise, a full participant in covenant blessing and obligation.

This proclamation was so bold - so revolutionary and potentially socially disruptive - that later rabbis were forced to add "restrictions" on this complete realignment of social relationships. Specifically, the rabbis restricted marriage to "former" family members even though these social ties had been severed.

The "born again" imagery of Rabbi Yose seems to parallel Jesus' teaching about the coming kingdom of God and the severing of family ties.

Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You." But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?" And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother." (Mark 3:31-35 NKJV)

So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time-houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions-and in the age to come, eternal life." (Mark 10:29-30 NKJV)

Then He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."  Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:59-60 NKJV)

-----------------------------------

While the parallel between the "newly born child" imagery of Rabbi Yose and the sayings of Jesus in John 3:3 regarding "new birth" is interesting and perhaps even informative, I must offer one caveat.

In seeking parallels between New Testament writings and rabbinic Judaism, there is always the prospect of anachronism. The New Testament was written between 30 and 100 C.E., whereas the first written records of the rabbinic teaching is the Mishnah around 200 C.E. and the final collection occurred with the assembly of the Babylonian Talmud around 600 C.E.

Clearly, the collective rabbinic writings refer to Jewish teachers before 70 C.E. (the destruction of the Jewish Temple). Specifically, we know of Hillel and Shammai (and the "houses" of their followers) as well as Gamaliel who is also referenced in New Testament writings. But Jacob Neusner, the great scholar of rabbinic Judaism, reminds us that we cannot know the exact form or language of the teachings of these early rabbis. All records of these rabbis came from later writings which expand, elucidate, and comment on their teachings. Neither the Mishnah nor Talmud attempts to recover the "historic rabbis" in their pre-70 C.E. context nor in the exact language of their teachings.

So New Testament parallels with rabbinic teaching can be suggestive and informing - but one should never solely interpret any New Testament passage by later passages from the Mishnah or Talmud.

Oneness Pentecostal Theologies of God

I recently received an email from Dave Ferrell - a Ph.D student who is researching the history and thought of Apostolic (or Oneness) Pentecostalism - with a couple of questions about my dissertation. Specifically, he asked that I clarify my use of the terms "Father-Son Christology" and economic modalism in my assessment of the Oneness Pentecostal theology of God. To this request, I wrote the following response.

----------------------------

I think that there are several versions of the Oneness Pentecostal theology of God - all of which center on the undivided and indivisible unity of God's being and all of which privilege the Hebrew/Old Testament presentation of God as the interpretive framework/foundation for dealing with all New Testament language regarding God's person and work. Perhaps different "versions" is too strong a term; for it implies that each position is clearly delineated from the others and is mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, I think it is possible to describe several different - perhaps competing - conceptualizations in Oneness Pentecostal thought about God. These are not just "variations on a theme." Rather they are distinguishable strategies for explaining how the creator God was also present in the life and death of Jesus and is still present today in the life of the Christian believer and the worship of the gathered Christian community.

I also think that some of the contemporary Oneness Pentecostal theological expressions parallel historic positions that were taken in the post-apostolic, pre-Nicene/Constantinople period. I say this with a little trepidation because the historic sources of some of these early Christian views - especially those that were later labeled heretical - are slim and are available to us only in the context of the polemic writings of their opponents.

Let me also say that I am restricting my comments to the truly theological thinking about God's being rather than more popular Oneness Pentecostal views. While it would be interesting to list some of the popular expressions of Oneness Pentecostal teaching - ranging from the unique to the truly bizarre - such an entertaining exercise would not further this discussion.

The first common version of Oneness Pentecostal thought about God is by far the simplest and in many ways the most profound: embracing the mystery of God in Christ. This view simply adheres to powerful scriptural proclamations - like "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" and "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up in glory." - all without consciously recognizing any theological problem, contradiction, and/or difficulty with these passages. For those holding this view, Christological debate is a non-starter. This view bluntly affirms that the selfsame creator God was present in Christ and is equally present as the Holy Spirit in the church today - without any attempt - or even a felt need - to delve into the challenging questions rising from biblical language and its Christological interpretation, a concern that dominated Christian debate in the first centuries of church history.

This view does not acknowledge any problem with its overly simple Christological interpretation of biblical language or attempt to engage in any debate or defense of its position. I am tempted to say - without any concrete evidence to back up my statement - that this is probably the majority view among Oneness Pentecostals today.

The second common version of Oneness Pentecostal thought about God is what I have labeled the "Father-Son Christology." This view takes a Chalcedonian understanding of the two natures of Christ as the solution to the "Father-Son" language in the New Testament. This view originates in the New Issue dispute in the Assemblies of God (1914-1916) about baptismal formula that relegated the terms "Father" and "Son" to mere titles rather than names - titles that point beyond themselves to the true divine name, Jesus. (This logic seems to follow the progression of Frank Ewart's thinking in the fall and winter of 1913-1914.) "Father" comes to represent the divine side of the incarnation and "Son" the human. The total incarnate God - Jesus - was both Father (God) and Son (man) at the same time.

This view reconciles all New Testament Father-Son distinctions - especially in John's Gospel - by an appeal to the dual nature of Jesus. The solution is particularly helpful in dealing with scriptural passages that show inequality between Father and Son - especially in clear subordination passages like "The Father is greater than I" and those passages that speak of the limitation of the Son's knowledge in contrast with the Father's. Problem passages that seem to confer the power and privilege of deity on the Son are understood to refer to the entire incarnate Christ who is both God and man.

This view distinguishes Father and Son qualitatively - one is God and one is man - and also spatially. God is physically inside the man Jesus. Colossians 2:9 is a great proof text of the Father-Son Christology. "For in him (Jesus) dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

The chief shortcomings of this view are twofold. First, while the term Father is used consistently of God, equivocation occurs regarding the term Son. Sometimes the Son refers to the human or physical side of Jesus; while at other times, it refers to the entire incarnation (the God-man). The shifting definition of the term Son allows Oneness Pentecostal exegetes to sidestep many problem passages that seem to distinguish Father from Son. Second, the underlying Chalcedonian conceptualization of Christ's dual nature - that underpins the Father-Son Christology - often devolves into a somewhat-Nestorian affirmation of two separate and distinct persons within the incarnate Christ - at least in practical terms. The prayers of Jesus - where the bodily side of Jesus prays to God inside him - is the best example of this sundering of the incarnation into two distinct beings bound together in only the loosest way. The "departure" of Christ's spirit (the Father) from the physical body of Christ (the Son) at the death of Jesus is another example of this strict "dichotomy of being" in the incarnate Christ.

The third and final common view of Oneness Pentecostal thought about God is economic modalism - the notion that there is no division of being or person in God, but rather there is only a progression of roles/manifestations - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -  that God has played throughout salvation history. The selfsame God was - according to this Oneness Pentecostal understanding - Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in salvation of believers. This view of the unfolding economy of God's actions, if seen consistently, must be progressive - the Father gives way to the Son and the Son, in turn, gives way to the Holy Spirit. (This may have been the historic position of Sabellius although all records of his teachings have been filtered by his opponents who may or may not have fairly and accurately understood or portrayed his views.)

With economic modalism, Jesus was not Father and Son at the same time - rather he was the one God who had been manifested as Father in creation and was now manifested as Son in first century Palestine. Likewise, to be consistent, the Son will one day "surrender" his role that God may be "all-in-all" - that is, the Son is only a temporary manifestation of God that began and will end in time. This temporary appearance of God in Jesus is especially troublesome to several of the most prominent Oneness Pentecostal defenders who reject any idea of progressive modalism. The Father-Son Christology is entirely incompatible with the progression of divine roles/manifestations in economic modalism.

Of these three commonly held views, I find the first to be the most compelling. (I am not being clever or facetious in saying this.) I am more persuaded by the appeal to the raw language of the New Testament proclamation that I am by the other reasoned arguments.  The "Father-Son Christology" (rooted in Chalcedonian dual natures of Christ) and economic modalism both have something profoundly in common with the Niceo-Constantinople Trinitarianism that these views seek to deny. All of these arguments  - Oneness and Trinitarian alike - recast Hebraic biblical language, symbols, and metaphors through the thorough-going Greek conceptual world of middle Platonism. Adolf von Harnack, the late 19th century church historian, labeled any such reformulations of biblical religion into Greek philosophical categories as the "Hellenization of the Christian church."