Bible

With fascism on the rise in the United States of America and around the world, and with many so-called “Christians” gladly supporting the rise of the far-right and attributing it to the will of God, I was struck by these words from Ephesians 5 (which were assigned as one of the readings for Morning Prayer today). Ephesians 5:11-14 (New Living Translation, NLT) 11 Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, expose them. 12 It is shameful even to talk about the things that ungodly people do in secret. 13 But their evil intentions will be exposed when the light shines on them, 14 for the light makes everything visible. This is why it is said, ...

You can’t follow Jesus and hate immigrants. Of course, this does NOT settle every question of immigration policy! But, if you’re a follower of Jesus, consider your overall posture toward immigrants. If you call yourself a Christian, I want you to think about this seriously. What comes into your head and your heart when you think of immigrants and refugees? Fear? Anger? Disgust? What if the immigrants are in your country legally? What if they’re your brothers and sisters in Christ? Does that make any difference in what you think and feel about them? Or are they still primarily “illegals” who are “ruining this country”? ...

1 Peter 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, what will be the end for those who do not obey the gospel of God? Isaiah 58:1–14 Shout out, do not hold back! Lift up your voice like a trumpet! Announce to my people their rebellion, to the house of Jacob their sins. Yet day after day they seek me and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness and did not forsake the ordinance of their God; they ask of me righteous judgments, they delight to draw near to God. ...

TL;DR: If you’re serious about biblical and theological studies, you should invest in Logos 10 Bible Software. Do so via my exclusive partner offer for Logos 10 here! If I could go back in time and chat with Joshua Steele when he was a Bible & Spanish major in college, there are a few things I’d tell my younger self: Quit laughing at How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and READ the thing. Baba ghanoush is superior to hummus. Study computer science sooner rather than later. Bite the bullet and INVEST IN A LOGOS BIBLE SOFTWARE LIBRARY. Don’t get me wrong. I love physical books as much as anyone, and I own quite a few (hundred)! ...

In Discipleship (DBWE 4), Dietrich Bonhoeffer frames all of the Beatitudes in terms of Jesus’ disciples living in renunciation (Verzicht) and want (Mangel). Interestingly, for Bonhoeffer, Jesus is only speaking to his disciples in the Beatitudes (he makes this argument on the basis of Luke 6:20ff.). And the disciples’ renunciation and want are caused by Jesus’s call to discipleship. Jesus sees: his disciples are over there. They have visibly left the people to join him. He has called each individual one. They have given up everything in response to his call. Now they are living in renunciation and want; they are the poorest of the poor, the most tempted of the tempted, the hungriest of the hungry. They have only him. Yes, and with him they have nothing in the world, nothing at all, but everything, everything with God. (DBWE 4:101). ...

Yesterday, I wrote just a bit about interpretive approaches to the Beatitudes in Matthew 5. I’m trying to get a better handle on how Barth and Bonhoeffer treat the Sermon on the Mount, and I’m starting with the Beatitudes. However, it’s pretty challenging to situate Barth and Bonhoeffer in light of the “standard” approaches to both the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount. A case in point: yesterday, I felt pretty confident that Bonhoeffer does not take the standard “entrance requirements” approach to the Beatitudes. ...

As I said in my previous post, “Interpretive Approaches to the Sermon on the Mount,” I’m working on how Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer read the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, when interpreting the Sermon on the Mount, the best place to start is at the beginning! This means beginning with the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:1–12. The Beatitudes (Matt. 5:1–12) 1 When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying: ...

I’m working on how Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer read the Sermon on the Mount. In order to help situate my discussion of Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s readings, I’m trying to get a better grasp of the various interpretive approaches to the Sermon on the Mount. So far, the most exhaustive Sermon on the Mount “interpretive taxonomy” that I’ve found has been from Grant Osborne’s Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 159. ...

UPDATE: Here is the paper that I gave at the 2019 Karl Barth Graduate Student Colloquium at the Center for Barth Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. INTRODUCTION: “GENTILES” = “WORLD” IS WORSE THAN “ISRAEL” = “CHURCH” On at least one level, Karl Barth’s Römerbrief reading of Romans 9–11 is supersessionist. In general, especially in the second edition, when Paul refers to “Israel” in Romans 9–11, Barth refers to the “Church.”[1] He replaces Israel with the Church. That’s supersessionism, case closed. Right? Well, yes and no. It has become increasingly common to at least mitigate or nuance the charge of supersessionism against Barth’s reading of Romans 9–11. Various scholars have broadly argued that, yes, Barth’s handling of Romans 9–11 at least leaves the door open for at least a certain kind of supersessionism, but, no, he wasn’t being quite as careless with Israel as it might initially seem.[2] By and large, I agree with these assessments. Barth should have said more about the actual people and history of Israel, but he wasn’t trying to merely displace Israel with the Church, as if the latter were superior and the former were forgotten. He was trying to bring Israel and the Church together in solidarity, in opposition to the arrogance of the Church. ...

I’m scheduled to give a paper on Karl Barth’s reading of Romans 9:30–10:21 in Der Römerbrief at the 2019 Barth Graduate Student Colloquium at Princeton in August. Now, of course, it’s a pleasure and a privilege to give a paper at the colloquium. However, in hindsight, I don’t know why I thought giving a paper on chapter 10 of Barth’s Römerbrief was a good idea! Granted, I don’t have to solve all of the exegetical issues (of which there are many) in Romans 9:30–10:21. I just have to make some sense of what Barth thought about the passage. ...

(Here’s a PDF of this paper: STEELE_When Will Thy Kingdom Come.) Introduction: “Thy Kingdom [Has/Will] Come”? Just how eschatological is the Lord’s Prayer (=LP; Matt. 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4), particularly in light of its second petition, “Your kingdom come” (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, Matt. 6:10a; Luke 11:2d)? In other words, when will God’s kingdom come? Has it already arrived (not eschatological)? Is it in the process of arriving? Or will it arrive at some point in the future (eschatological)? Furthermore, who brings the kingdom about? Humans? God? Or some combination of the two? Settling the question of eschatology involves both the timing and the agency, the when and the who, of the kingdom. ...

Jesus Christ has gone into the far country in our stead, to bring us home to God!

It just happened again. I had to consult “BDAG,” A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.). I don’t own a copy, so every time I have to consult BDAG I think “I really should buy this.” But for the past decade or so, primarily because of BDAG’s cost ($150 on Logos, $130 used on Amazon, $165 new on Amazon) I’ve held off. Nevertheless, I’m seeking to build my “must-have” personal reference library to sustain a ministry as a pastor theologian. So, I think I need to buy BDAG sometime soon. While I’m at it, I might as well get HALOT, the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament… Logos sells them as a bundle. ...

Just came across this article in New Blackfriars, and it looks helpful, especially in the context of Anglican debates about women’s ordination. Title: “The Four Types of Priesthood in the New Testament: On Avoiding Confusions about What ‘Priesthood’ Means” Author: Geoffrey Turner Abstract: Christian discourse tends to treat the concept of ‘priesthood’ univocally, so that ordained priests are seen to share the priesthood of Christ. But a careful reading of Hebrews shows clearly that the priesthood of Christ is unique to him. There are four (even five) types of priest in the New Testament and each of them is distinct and not to be confused. ...

This is the question we’re considering this week in our doctoral seminar on biblical and theological integration. Two of us are theologians and the other four are bible scholars. Should be interesting! (Note: we’ll have to save the difference(s) between systematic, historical, and dogmatic theology for another post!) Here are the articles we were assigned to read for this week: D.A. Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology” in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, pp. 89-104. D.A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology” in Scripture and Truth, D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 65-95. G. Hasel, “The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology” Trinity Journal 5 (1984): 113-27; I.H. Marshall, “Climbing Ropes, Ellipses and Symphonies: The Relation between Biblical and Systematic Theology” in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 199–219. E.A. Martens, “Moving from Scripture to Doctrine” Bulletin for Biblical Research 15.1 (2005): 77-103. Kevin Vanhoozer, “Interpreting Scripture between the Rock of Biblical Studies and the Hard Place of Systematic Theology: The State of the Evangelical (Dis)union” in Richard Lints, ed., Renewing the Evangelical Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 201-25. Other than that, for the rest of the semester, we’re reading at least selections from the following works. The goal is to learn from examples of biblical and theological integration. ...