Watts Happening

Christianity is full of slippery words. Words in general are pretty slippery. They are a bunch of sounds or symbols scrunched together in such a way that when we see/hear them, we unconsciously attribute a certain meaning or significance to them. But words themselves have no intrinsic meaning, they mean whatever the agreed upon meaning is (e.g. it is now agreed that ‘gay’ means ‘homosexual’ rather than ‘happy’).

Obviously there is also the problem that the meaning of a sentence or an utterance is suspended until the next word comes along. For example, if the ‘W’ of ‘words’ in the first line of this post were an ‘L’ instead, each word in the sentence would have a slightly altered meaning e.g. Christianity in the first instance must refer to that linguistic world of Christianity, whereas in the second it refers to the people who are part of the group. The last word modulates the first. This comes under the banner of ‘context’, which is an all important factor in determining the meaning and significance of an utterance.

But there is not only a literary context, there is also the historical context. This involves everything from the author to the time and place of writing, to the audience. If we want to understand an utterance, we would do well to place it on the historical cultural map, and consider all aspects of the communicative process. 

The aspect i am very interested in is a relatively new one in biblical studies. It is concerned with the medium of communication in the ancient world, specifically with the fact that most communication took place in an oral/aural world rather than a literary one. Many studies have been done on how Mark might have operated as a piece of ‘oral literature’ (yes thats what they call it!), including speculations about hand gestures, emotional outbursts and audience participation. All of these extra-linguistic signs would add something to the gospel that we simply cannot get from a reading. There have been similar, but far fewer, studies done on Paul, although this is where i see some interesting avenues of research.

Paul did not write letters, he dictated them to what was essentially his secretary. When they were arrived they were not read in silence, but proclaimed, presumably using some of the techniques of contemporary oratory. The carrier of the letter may have read it aloud, and in that sense, to what extent did she have control over the meaning. In the ancient world, the reader of the letter essentially carried the presence of the sender. How does this impact how we understand Paul’s apostolic mission as one sent by God with the gospel message of Jesus. Maybe this explains the curious remark in Galatians that Christ had been publicly displayed as crucified; Paul’s performance of the gospel operated in such a way, that afterwards, he could talk as if they had seen the real thing. Was his performance ‘the power of God for salvation’?

There are also some interesting points in 1 Cor where Paul is speaking out against the popular style of public speaking. He doesnt use eloquence or clever words to pull on the heartstrings of his listeners as did the rhetoricians of the day, he simply perfomed Christ, and through that performance, the spirit operated by (using Campbell’s term) plotting the audience onto Christ’s trajectory.

There are a whole host of interesting things to look into now we have realised that Paul wrote for the eye, not the ear.

This is pretty long. It was for a class on Mark in Greek and the task was to exegete and analyze a passage. I have revised and updated it a little taking out some of the arguments and references to scholars to make it a bit more accessible, and have added a bit of application at the end. 
 
It used to be popular among scholars of the New Testament to view Mark as a collector of traditions. The thought was that he inherited a number of individual stories or ‘pericopes’ about Jesus and threw them together somewhat haphazardly into the Gospel we know today as Mark. Some people like this idea, as it seems to give us a basically clear window back to the words of Jesus. However more recent experts have disagreed with this appraisal.  They have identified it as the work of a creative theologian who uses the stories he inherited to get across key theological themes. It is more than an assorted collection of Peter’s memoirs about Jesus; it is not so much a clear window as a well designed stained glass one.
 
I am here focusing in on one part of that window in order to offer an explanation for what it means, but just as a few fractions of glass examined closely will receive new life and meaning when placed in their stained glass framework, the passage I am analysing is modulated by its literary and narrative context. For this reason I will focus in this essay on how Mk 10:35-45 would have been heard by his audience in the context of his wider narrative. We will see that in Mark 10:35-45, two of the major Markan themes of the suffering messiah and discipleship are presented in a way that highlights the connection between them.
 
The progression in the narrative brought by the introduction of two characters (James and John) is alone enough to justify the identification of a unit, but the presence of historic present verb (προσπορευονται) in the first verse confirms the break. The historic present at the start of a passage often suggests that it was once an independent story. The second half was probably originally unconnected to the first, but In the context of Mark’s gospel, the parts are inextricably tied together into a coherent narrative structure that runs from 10:35-45. So the unit must be considered as one.
 
The structure of 10:35-40 can be outlined as follows:
Main question Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left in you glory
               Reply You do not know what you are asking
                             Sub-question Are you able to drink the cup… or be baptized with the baptism?
                             Sub-answer We are able
              Prophecy The cup…you will drink and the baptism… you will be baptised.
Main answer To sit at my right or my left is not mine to grant
 
A key to understanding this passage is to realise that it is based on misunderstanding. The brother’s ask to sit beside Jesus ‘in his glory’. This phrase could refer to a number of things, however I find the most likely candidate to be the so-called ‘messianic banquet’. This great feast would mark the start of the age to come, which was a popular Jewish hope. There is an interesting parallel here to a text written by the Qumran community (dead sea scrolls), a group who lived around the same time as Mark. In the text known as 1QSa, the seating arrangements of this messianic banquet go in order of ‘dignity’ with the most established guests sitting alongside the messiah. James and John were asking for status.
 
What should we make then of Jesus’ response? The answer is clear when we pay attention to the few passages that precede this incident, most notably the incident of Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi (8:27-33). In these pages, Jesus repeatedly teaches that the son of man must suffer and die, but the disciples repeatedly seem incapable of grasping it. The whole unit from 8:27-10:45 is deeply connected with the unusual story of the blind man healed twice in Mk 8. In the same way as the blind man could see partially after the first healing, the disciples have identified that Jesus is truly the long awaited messiah, but have not understood that for Jesus messiahship is a very different thing than what they were expecting.
 
James and John are making the same mistake as Peter in 8:27-33 by seeing Jesus messiahship in worldly terms. It is this short sightedness that leads to Jesus comment back to them – ‘you do not know what you are asking’. The question of James and John not only displays a misunderstanding of what messiahship involves, but also of what discipleship and leadership involve.
 
The sub-question that Jesus puts back to the brothers is an attempt to enlighten them to the true meaning of his messiahship, bringing into the foreground once again the Markan theme of the suffering messiah so common in this literary unit. The phrase ‘δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω’ is a vivid metaphor meaning ‘are you able to share in the suffering that i will go through’. While in some sense the suffering may have already begun, the present tense of πίνω should probably be taken as a futuristic present in reference to the crucifixion. Most scholars see the saying about baptism as parallel in meaning as it was used in contemporary Greek in this way. However, Mark and his audience cannot have been deaf to the Pauline idea of baptism as participation into Jesus’ death (Rom 6:3).
 
It could be argued that the answer James and John give means they have finally understood that suffering is involved and wish to share in it with Jesus. But this underestimates the theme of misunderstanding present in the literary context and also fails to account for why Jesus has to teach a lesson about the true meaning of authority and status.
 
In my opinion, the best way of reading this is to assume that the disciples have misunderstood the references to cup and baptism, and are accepting the wrong thing. While ‘ποτήριον’ (cup) is obviously a metaphor to the hearer, It is easy to imagine how the brothers who are thinking of a messianic feast might immediately think of the wine that was associated with this. It is also easy to imagine how they might hear the phrase ‘Baptism i am baptised with’ as referring to the baptism in the spirit that Jesus recieved, and that according to John’s promise in 1:8, would come from the one who follows him. This outpouring of the Spirit was itself a sign of the eschatological era. If this is the case, the disciples still dont know what they are saying when they respond with ‘we are able’, and this should be taken as a case of irony.
 
In any case Jesus affirms that they will indeed have to do what they have said they are able to do, although Jesus is talking about the metaphorical sense of cup and baptism again. Many have focussed on how this is a prophecy of James and John’s death, but this is not necessarily the case from the language used. It is more likely that it simply means ‘you will share in the sufferings of me’. Later in his gospel, Mark shows us that ‘sitting’ on Jesus right and left actually involves exaclty what Jesus said it would, drinking his cup of suffering hanging on a cross. The exact same phrase is used (one on his right and one on his left) of the two bandits crucified aliongside Jesus.
 
The second half opens with the anger of the ten against James and John, which is due not to their misguided question, but rather due to the fact that they themselves have been undercut. The fact that Jesus has to call them together and teach them a lesson shows that it was not only James and John who had not grasped the truth, but the whole twelve. In this portion, Jesus corrects the misunderstanding about authority and the misunderstanding about the messiah. The two turn out to be intimately connected.
 
Seeing as Its core is a portion of teaching about authority and status, at first the question of Jesus’ messianic role seems to have been left behind. However verse 45 brings back the theme of Jesus’ duty as sufferer and servant, linking back to the concerns of 35:40. Another connection is that in this second half, as above, the logic of the suffering messiah is applied to discipleship; In 35-40, Jesus attempted to tell James and John that the way to positions of authority is through sharing in his sufferings, whereas in these verses he gives it in the more general and easy to understand message of ‘because the son of man came to serve and give his life, you should also be servants and slaves of all’. This is shown by the γὰρ of v.45 which in this instance shows that v.45 gives the reason for the teaching in v.43b-44
 
In v.41-42, Jesus conjures up the well known image of the tyrannical ruler that would have been all too familiar to the disciples and to the reader of Mark’s gospel, all of whom were living under the Roman empire. He sets up the worldly standard of authority and status before quickly brushing it aside in preparation for his teaching. This may be what James and John had in mind when they asked their question, that by sitting in the seats of authority, they would be able to lord it over (κατακυριεύουσιν) lesser members of the kingdom. But Jesus here firmly rebukes that idea.
 
It is difficult to overstate the radical social values being espoused by Jesus here. It is a tough enough teaching to grasp today, but in a culture that was driven by honour and status, it is incredible. The upshot of this is that James and John’s question, and the ten’s response show them to modelling themselves on those whom they despise.
 
Not only does Verse 45 give the grounding for the teaching in 10:42-44, as the only instance in Mark’s gospel where the reason for Jesus’ death is given it has a wider significance than its role in this paticular pericope. As far as its relation to Is 53 is concerned, I find Hooker’s analysis to be accurate. There is  difficulty in supporting a direct link with Is 53, however the theology of the servant songs in general forms the background.
 
Λύτρον Can have a number of meanings, although its most popular in Josephus, Philo and LXX is the price for the manumission of slaves. This might connect again to Paul’s theology, but it is probably linked more closely to 4 Macc and Dan 7. The meaning of this verse is that because the messiah has to die to serve the ‘many’ means that those who follow the messiah must also become servants (διάκονος) or slaves  (δοῦλος). Just as James and John had assumed that the disciple of the messiah gets a share in the glory by being served, Jesus teaches that the disciple actually shares in the service and suffering.
 
Given James and John’s importance in the early church, it may appear striking that a story showing them as rather dim and selfish made it through the period of oral transmission. But its appearance at this point in Mark’s narrative does not come as a surprise. I have shown that this passage is marked by misunderstanding and as such fits perfectly into the wider message that Mark is communicating in this literary unit.
 
The twin themes of messiahship and discipleship that are characteristic of Mark’s gospel both make an appearance here. True discipleship means a rejection of the worldly models of authority, status and messiahship and acceptance of the way of the suffering son of man.
 
In today’s world, it is so easy to turn Jesus into a consumer product. Churches can advertise it as the way to solve all your problems, the miracle sure that will make everything go well. All you need to do is top up your levels every week at church and you are sorted. But the teaching of Jesus in these passages makes this kind of thinking sound ridiculous. To be a disciple doesn’t mean things go well, it means to go through the 2 stage process of the blind man in chapter 8; first to recognise the messiah, and second to learn that the messiah didnt come into his kingdom with a glorious banquet with you and I at his sides, he came slumped on one of the most horrific torture devices known to man, abandoned by his friends, surrounded by crooks and crushed by the ‘so-called’ authorities of the day.
 
To be a Christian is to follow our leader.

‎2 Cor 5:17
An amazing summary of what it is to be a Christian. In the Greek its even more concise, “If anyone in Christ - new creation”. Every winter i look outside at nature and cant help but think “how on earth is this ever going to grow back”. The trees are black and lifeless, the ground is frozen and useless and Plants die due to the change in climate. But sure enough every spring the sun warms the ground, shoots start to appear and eventually summer rolls on and vibrant colours and sounds are everywhere.

Its easy to look around at the world and see the brokenness, the corruption. To see the black lifeless silhouettes that should be trees in full bloom. To feel the cold frozen ground that should be sprouting fresh shoots. But in doing that we forget. We forget that summer is coming. We forget that under that harsh exterior that we see there is something we cant see. There is still life bubbling away under the surface, we just cant see the results of it yet.

Their is a group who knows this truth, the ‘in-christ’ people. The ones who believe that in the resurrection God has already done for Jesus what he will eventually do for the cosmos. The group who feel just enough warmth to sprout through the coldness of winter and say Summer is coming.

When we look out across the what seems to be the barren frozen landscape of a broken world. Make sure you draw your attention to those small expanding areas of green and remind yourself that summer is on its way.

I’ve been looking at Mark’s gospel in a bit of detail recently for some stuff I’m working on at Uni, and i thought id share a few observations on the opening verses. They are not thoroughly worked through and might sound like utter nonsense, but i thoguht id share anyway.

We are greeted in the text by the title ‘[The] Beginning of The Good News About King Jesus, [The Son of God]’ (my translation). For the original audience ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’ (ευαγγελιον) would not have been understood how we have come to understand it; that is a written account of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. I would suggest that if we consider some other use’s of the word - which predate Mark’s gospel - we can have a better idea of what is being said.

»>Paul

Paul’s good news or gospel was that God had finally acted by sending the Messiah or Christ, ushering in the new age and destroying the evil powers at work in the present age. According to Paul, salvation had already come and the proof was that Jesus had ressurected, and that the Spirit was transforming people (Rom 1:1-6).

Paul’s usage of the term seems like a deliberate reference to the way the term was used in contemporary Greco-Roman culture (see below), and i am assuming that this use of gospel (the oral proclamation about God’s victory in Christ) was widespread in early Christianity, at least that which was influenced by Paul.

If this is true then the temptation to read ‘beginning’ (αρχη) in Mark 1:1 as ‘opening section’ or ‘start here’ is wrong. It is rather to be understood as ‘the beginning’ or ‘the origin’ of God’s plan to right what is wrong.

»> Greco-Roman Culture

In this connection, one of the most frequently cited and seemingly obvious parallels for Mark’s language here is the Priene Inscription in Turkey. 

… Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a 

savior, … and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him  

Augustus Caesar’s birthday was considered the beginning of the good news by the author of this inscription. There is other evidence that supports a view of ‘good news’ as a the empire’s victory over its enemies, or of a new emperor taking the throne. It is difficult to imagine the author of Mark, living under the control of this empire being unaware of this political rhetoric, and it certainly seems like Mark has deliberately used the kind of language popular in the imperial cult and connected with pax romana in his opening sentence.
(I am curious about how far you can push the Priene connection. What if Mark is opposing the idea that the birth of Augustus (often described as son of God or God) was the beginning of the Good News with his own idea that the birth of Jesus the son of God is the beginning of the good news. Obviously here you bump into the obvious observation that Mark lacks a birth narrative, but what if for Mark, Jesus’ baptism was his birth?)

»> Jewish use

There are not many mentions of the good news in the OT with the exception of a couple of texts in Isaiah (40:9, 52:7), but it is closely connected with the idea of a return from exile. NT Wright has shown that the theme of a return from exile is shown in a large amount of Jewish literature around the time of Jesus, and that this return would symbolise the new eschatological age. The good news in this respect was that YHWH had returned. In this connection it is telling that Mark immediately cites Mal 3:1 which talks of a messenger (elijah/John the Baptist) who will be followed by the LORD himself, and then he cites Isaiah  40:3) which talks of one calling in the wilderness who will prepare the way for YHWH.

»> Conclusion

So tying all this together, we have one word with a lot of different points of reference, but all of which speak of victory. The good news is always connected with an announcement that a victory has been won, and in Mark’s use it is the announcement that God’s victory has been won in Jesus the king.
Mark is looking retrospectively. For him the good news is already a reality, Christ has already risen and the battle has already been won. But he looks back at the mesmerizing figure at the centre of this whole drama, back to his baptism in the Jordan, and his wanderings around Galilee, and says ‘This is what that victory looks like when it has flesh and bones. This is the obscure background from which God’s plan to right what is wrong came from’.

Currently reading Doug Campbell’s “The Quest for Paul’s Gospel” and will likely be posting a few thoughts from it up over the next week or so.

So far he’s analyzed and critiqued the main proposals for a ‘centre’ to Paul’s gospel in recent Pauline interpretation before articulating his own model. I’m going to briefly recreate this below as these three ‘camps’ are quite useful in that you can more or less place most Paul scholars in one of these to get an overall feel for their presuppositions, arguments and conclusions. I each i outline Cambpells description and try to give a bullet point account of how this would have worked in Paul’s thinking.

»JF model (Justification by Faith aka Lutheran reading)

This has been the approach of the majority of scholars since Luther - the other two models are products of the 20th century- and as the title indicates, it centres Paul’s thought on the idea of Justification by faith. Campbell notes that the textual heartland of this approach is Romans 1-4, although it can also be supported elsewhere, particularly Galatians. The basic idea is this:

• Paul was trying to gain righteousness by being a legalistic Jew. He was trying to justify himself by ‘works of the law’, but his inability to do these good works consistently leads him to a state of guilt and hopelessness.
• He meets Jesus on the road to Damascus and puts his faith in him, thus triggering the salvific process whereby ones sins are forgiven.
• This leads to a new state in which regardless of Paul’s transgressions and actions, he is considered righteous anyway because of his faith.
• His sin has been transfered by God onto Christ, who then dies, taking away his sins.

This model suggests that what Paul went through here is exactly what we go through when we are saved, but rather than jewish legalism, we are attempting righteousness by high moral standards which we fail to achieve.

It can also be described in terms of a courtroom, whereby God the judge finds us guilty, but transfers our guilt onto Christ, thus eventually acquitting us.

»SH Model (Salvation-History)

This was developed as a reaction against some of the JF model’s failings (of which i haven’t mentioned) and relies upon an increased awareness of the context - or Jewishness- of Paul’s thought. The centre of his thinking here is essentially the fulfillment of OT promises and Campbell locates its homeland in Romans 9-11. Here is an outline;

• Paul was an educated Jewish Pharisee alive during a period of intense messianic expectation and imperial oppression 
• His persecution of Christians was his way of zealously trying to maintain the Law and thus protect the covenant relationship with YHWH, who would only return when this had happened.
• His Damascus experience was understood within that matrix of Jewish ideas yet it drove him to formulate an innovative theology which pushed Judaism’s boundaries.

This is where a lot of New Perspectives work goes on, particularly the work of the legendary NT Wright. Justification here is understood by Wright in terms of ‘badges’. In Judaism he argues, Law observance was a badge of the eschatological community, but when he sees the ressurection, Paul makes the Isaiah connection and realizes gentiles are now in. Now the eschatological group is not marked by law observance but by Christ, who’s faithfulness made the whole process possible. 

»PPME (get ready for it… Pneumatologically Participatory Martyrological Eschatology)

The title of this model sounds like scholarly rhetoric to scare you into submission, but through all the ‘ologies’ there is a good solid model (Most scholars just label this as Apocalyptic or Participatory).

A key to this reading of Paul is to recognize his dualistic worldview. Our immediate tendency at this point is to cry ‘Paul’s not a Gnostic’, but there is evidence of this kind of dualistic thinking in other second temple Jewish texts. This dualism is connected with the Jewish understanding of history being divided into ages, the present one being evil, and the one to come being a good new creation.

• Paul understand the present age to be evil, and in it humanity is controlled by evil powers of sin and death contrary to the plan of God.
• Paul meeting the resurrected Christ convinced him that the New age had begun and the old age with sin and death had been conquered.
• The continuation of the old age meant that although the victory had been won, it would not be apparent until Christ’s return - The end had not finished yet.

The catchphrase of this model is εν χριστω or in Christ (participatory). Basically the way we come into the new age is via the Holy Spirit (pnematologically…) plotting us onto Christ’s ‘trajectory’ of death (martyrological) and resurrection (eschatology).

I hope this is helpful to anyone struggling with the different streams of thought in Paul. Campbell favours the last of these models so in future posts i will likely be referring to this one. I have not given criticism of the views for 2 reasons: 1. this post is too long already, and 2. i wanted to give some broad categories for understanding various scholar’s overall emphases.

Its no mystery to anyone with any degree of bible knowledge that there is a relationship between the first three gospels. In looking at how this relationship works we can be sure of two things 1) they are sharing sources, and 2) they have no qualms about adapting, expanding, contracting, dissecting, reframing and recycling elements of that shared tradition to make theological points. With this in mind, we need to rethink what we mean when we say the gospels are historical;

- Do they contain historical elements? Yes (in my opinion)

- Are they equivalent to ancient tape recorders? No

- Do they have a theological agenda? Absolutley

What is interesting is why they decided to use history as the vehicle for their theological writings. Paul was perfectly happy writing theologically without direct recourse to a historical Jesus, so why did the gospel authors choose to go another way?

A few years ago before i started bible college my pastors old pastor came over from America and did a day of teaching with a couple of local churches. I didn’t attend the whole thing but made it in time for the evening session which ended with him prophesying over a bunch of us. I wasn’t really sure what to expect, and only know am i really starting to come to terms with what it was all about.

What he said was pretty simple, something like; “you are going to teach the truth of the bible, getting into the nitty gritty and bringing it to the surface for the benefit of the church”. At the time i hadn’t really considered teaching but my pastor backed it up and encouraged me to pursue biblical training and so here i am, about to enter my third year of a degree at Mattersey hall College.

However, there is a problem. Its a problem which you notice straight away when you enter any kind of biblical training and one that grows the deeper you get; there seems to be a gaping chasm between Church and Academy, Pastors and Scholars, sermons and dissertations, and its a chasm that cuts right through that prophesy i received.

On the one hand you have pastors and clergy who are heavily involved with ‘church life’ with little time to delve into the massive amount of research that is being done. Even if they had the time, i get the impression that they dont see the need; “That kind of research should be left to the professionals, after all the bible isnt complex, we can all understand it.”

On the other hand there are the academics whose career depends on shuffling through the vast array of ancient documents and on carving out their own little piece of ingenious academic originality (sometimes to the detriment of the sources). The impressive work produced by these dudes is excellent to the student of the bible, but they often stop short (with a few exceptions) of how what they do relates to todays church.

You can see then why this chasm exists. What was once a unified discipline has split in two with one attempting to make our bible reading easier, and the other seemingly making it more and more difficult. I have oversiplified this and been a little unfair (there are those who do both) but its basically accurate.

In this context i am starting to see where that prophecy comes in. I have learned vast amounts already in my time as a student and intend to keep learning until i can learn no more, but i can not learn purely for my own sake or purely as an academic. What we need are more bridge builders, people who dive in to the research and emerge with fresh ideas and insights not to earn scholarly points but because that is what the church and the world needs.

I would hazard to say that if the church was brave enough to put its Jesus under the scrutiny of good honest scholarship, the result would be a different, maybe a drastically different Jesus, but this Jesus would be more vivd, more radical and more worth following than the one it left behind.

Following from a little chat we had in a cell group recently i thought id share some thoughts on the role of violence in Christianity. I owe some of these insights to others and people who are interested in ethics might be able to see where this is happening.

A few years ago, you could go to any church, any youth meeting, and camp or christian festival without somewhere finding the slogan/ brand name ‘WWJD’. ‘What Would Jesus Do’ became the tag line that dictated ethical decisions of millions of young people, some of whom showed their commitment by wearing rubber wrist bands emblazoned with the letters. At one level, this is exactly the kind of question that every Christian should ask. One of our primary concerns as disciples is to understand Jesus and live in accordance with the message he taught and the life he lived. But it seems that this question was normally coupled with an incomplete picture of Jesus; the popular picture of gentle Jesus meek and mild.

What would Jesus do was inevitably answered by some variation of the phrase ‘love everyone’. This is exactly the message Jesus preached, a message of crossing boundaries and loving the enemy, however it is only half the story. Unless the full impact of Jesus is apprehended, WWJD results in an impotent and truncated Christianity. We need to understand Jesus’ violence (or better, his non-violent violence)

There have been attempts to break away from this impotent Christianity by involving a violence of sorts. The neo-fundamentlist attitude of militance headed up by Jesus the hard man, but as pete rollins notes, this is like the violence of a man beating his wife. its a violence against flesh and blood and its just not violent enough. Time an again in the scriptures we find a Jesus who lives and teaches a life which does not use literal violence (buying into Wink’s myth of redemptive violence), but when it comes to principalities and powers is the most ruthless and violent individual to ever walk the earth. 

I guess what im talking about would be better termed meta-violence. A meta-violence uncorrupted by application toward humanity which is fully engaged when we fight the corrupt powers which Jesus died under and which his resurrection marks our victory.

What would Jesus do braclets can no longer be shackles which tie us to a commitment to take repeated smacks on the cheek, but need to be reminders that scarred wrists are the only way to peace. By tunrning our cheek we do not turn away from injustice, we challenge it with humanity and in so doing become metaviolent christians.

Im currently writing an essay on the main scholarly opinions regarding how Israel came to exist in Canaan. I thought id summarise what i’ve come across so far:

Conquest

Some scholars think that everything happened more or less  as described in the conquest narrative of Joshua. Under  God’s guidance Joshua led an army of invaders and destroyed some major Canaanite cities, eventually taking the whole land (with a couple of exceptions e.g. the peace treaty with Gibeon). The scholars who hold this view look to archaeology to support their case with some success, however the archaeological evidence can be interpreted in more than one way.

Infiltration

  A second view is that the Joshua narrative is essentially etiological.  Try reading it and look out for how many times you see the phrase  ’until this day’. These scholars believe this is a sign that the narratives were composed in order to explain certain geographical phenomena e.g. why was Ai in ruins? Why was there a large pile of stones in the valley of Achor?

The scholars who hold this view are notorious for ignoring external or archaeological evidence unless it supports their critical reading of the text and its fragmentation into various traditions and layers of later editorial work. They also overestimate the etiological case. It might well be that the stories have some etiological value, however this does not mean they are not historical.

Peasant Revolt

In this model, Israel was already in Canaan, as the underdog in society. The peasant working class. A shift in the economic climate caused them to revolt against their oppressors and establish themselves as a new society/nation.

I really like the peasant revolt model. Its the only on i haven’t properly looked into yet, but the whole idea of overthrowing the oppressive power structure and establishing some kind of egalitarian society is right up my street. I have issues with a divinely sanctioned conquest as it sounds too much like a divinely sanctioned holocaust. Being this side of 1945, we start to run into problems if we allow the genocide of a race of people because its God’s will.