A Spiritually Humbling and Moving Conference

In my previous blog entry I indicated that last week I was privileged to attend the Think Tank conference of truthXchange at New Life Presbyterian Church in Escondido, CA. To encourage him, I offered to Dr. Peter Jones my assessment of the conference. With full sincerity, I observed that, to date, it is the best conference I have attended. Why? It is because, despite reasonable expectation of some unevenness among the presenters, all mined deeply their assigned focus, and the progression and development of the conference theme effectively flowed. (For presenters and topics, see here.)

All who know me well realize that I am neither particularly moved by the affective nor easily impressed. Therefore, I trust that the point that I am about to make should be received with all that much more weight. At this conference I was exposed to and I made acquaintance of several young scholars who have considerable spiritual depth, holy gravitas, Christian acumen, and breadth of biblical knowledge. Among the various impacts witnessing the vastness of the knowledge and understanding that these folks have acquired has had upon me, I will mention three.

First, I have renewed confidence that the Lord God is raising up young individuals throughout his church to lead his people to resist the devil and the neo-pagan assault upon truth, against Christ, and upon the church. Not only are the presenters that I heard well-equipped to engage the battle against the forces of darkness, but they are capably equipping Christians to do the same. And each of the presenters manifested considerable humility.

Second, I am humbled by the wealth of knowledge, by the breadth of understanding, by the depth of spiritual maturity, by the vastness of the mastery of information, and by the weightiness of Christian demeanor that I witnessed from each of the presenters. I am grateful that so many from the younger generation are and have acquired a far more well-rounded and more deeply plumbed education than I received, given my quite unguided choices. The conference reminded me of encouragement that I have frequently offered students whom I have been privileged to instruct and to counsel, including young scholars whom I hear present their research.

Once again, what I have witnessed among so many young scholars revives hope and a deep sense that my own labors in Christian education, puny as they are, are not in vain. The pleasure I have taken in encouraging young scholars whom I fully expect to exceed my few and little accomplishments is refreshed and invigorated. An important and essential quality of true scholarship, in my estimation and for which we all should strive, is to find delight in serving as the source of ideas that stimulate and stir the imaginations and passions of younger scholars who will almost surely advance well beyond ourselves. Scholarship entails leadership that finds joy in passing ideas, insights, and curiosity on to others in such a manner that they take these up as their own and advance them. And we are to do this all without whining that the ideas may have originated with ourselves in some small way once we discover that those whom we have encouraged have done just as we encouraged them to do. True Christian scholarship is not particularly concerned to receive credit and applause for ideas, even if they are brilliant ideas, for we do not serve ourselves but the Lord.

So, if I have the opportunity of playing some small role in stirring research and writing juices in young scholars, I take delight in it. If an essay I publish prompts ideas which a young scholar takes up and advances even farther, as one student recently did, I am delighted.

Third, not only biblical scholars presented at the truthXchange Think Tank conference. Presenters came from a cross-section of disciplines. A look at the program reflects this. By way of example I will comment upon the penultimate presenter, Mr. Steve Baarendse, (Professor of Literature, Columbia International University, Columbia, SC). His presentation vividly displayed that one's scholarly study of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, as is so dominant in my guild, is no substitute for one's humble, believing, and daily reading of the Bible in English. Mr. Baarendse's knowledge of and use of the Bible in his presentation puts to shame the same as done by numerous scholars who read the Bible in the original languages. May Mr. Baarendse's tribe increase.

ETS Presentation on Πίστις Χριστοῦ

Update Note (11/15/10): I uploaded a slightly modified version of my presentation, in the event that you have downloaded and printed a copy.

If you plan to attend the Pistis Christou Discussion Panel listed on pages 20-21 of the Evangelical Theological Society 62nd Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on November 17, 2010 in Room 305 at 2:50-6:00 PM, you may want to print out my presentation and bring it with you to the session. Here is a copy of what I will be presenting.

You may also want to check out Bible Gateway's blog on translating Galatians 2:16. Look here. For older entries on the same question, look here.

The presentation below is also available here, at Google Docs.

The Faithfulness of Christ as a Theme in Paul's Theology Presentation Copy >

Justification, Judgment & Behavior: Judgment Day’s Coming Verdict Now Announced in the Gospel

For those of you who plan to attend the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meetings in Atlanta (Nov. 17-19), here is a paragraph from my essay that is scheduled to be presented for the Hermeneutics Study Group on Wednesday morning, November 17 according to the schedule below. Download Program PDF.

ROOM 213

Hermeneutics

Other Perspectives on the New Perspectives on Paul and the Law

Section Moderator: W. Edward Glenny (Northwestern College)

8:30-9:10 am

A. B. Caneday (Northwestern College, Saint Paul, MN)

Justification, Judgment & Behavior: Judgment Day’s Coming Verdict Now Announced in the Gospel

9:20-10:00 am

James B. De Young (Western Seminary)

Do the Apostolic Fathers Support the Premises of the New Perspectives on Paul and the Law?

10:10-10:50 am

Respondent: Lyn Nixon (London School of Theology)

Respondent: Matthew S. Harmon (Grace College & Theological Seminary)

In Romans 2:6-11Paul’s argument is not concerned with how or on what basis God will recompense people with eternal life or with wrath. Paul’s argument concerns to whom God will recompense eternal life and to whom God will recompense wrath.[1] This is evident in that the verb, “God will recompense” (ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ) finds its dual indirect objects stated within the four inner clauses of the chiasm: (B) τοῖς . . . ζητοῦσιν (v. 7), (C) τοῖς ἐξ ἐριθείας καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι . . . πειθομένοις (v. 8), (C’) ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου κτλ. (v. 9), and (B’) παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ κτλ. (v. 10).[2] Each of the substantive participles, though characterizing people by their behavior, accents character. The fact that each clause characterizes by behavior the respective recipients of God’s recompense does not mean that these antipodal characterizations indicate the cause or basis of God’s reward—eternal life or wrath. Rather, lest anyone, Jews in particular, presume that the wealth of God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience exempts them from God’s wrath that will fall upon Gentile sinners (2:4), Paul emphasizes both the impartiality and the inviolability of God’s recompense. The outer matched chiastic pair, stated in 2:6 and 11, accents the impartiality of God’s righteous judgment, while the inner corresponding pairs feature the inviolability of God’s justice.[3] Paul expresses the inviolability of God’s righteous judgment in another place: “God is not mocked. For what one sows, this also one reaps. The one who sows unto the flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction, but the one who sows unto the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life” (Gal. 6:7). Here, the imagery of sowing and reaping accents the inviolability of God’s justice behavior that characterizes and recompense, just as Romans 2:6-11 stresses the inviolable relationship God’s righteous judgment establishes between character and recompense.

[1] In The Race Set Before Us (Schreiner and Caneday) we make the case that in Rom. 2:6-11 “Paul does not answer the question ‘On what basis will one be justified?” The question is not how but “Who will be justified?” (165ff). Upon reading these pages again, we could have expressed our thoughts even more crisply, as I endeavor to do in this essay.

[2] See note below for the chiasm.

[3] For the sake of convenience, here is the chiasm presented earlier.

A. God will judge everyone equitably v. 6
     B. Those who do good will attain eternal life v. 7
          C. Those who do evil will suffer wrath v. 8
          C.’ Wrath for those who do evil v. 9
     B.’ Glory for those who do good v. 10
A.’ God judges impartially v. 11

---

James Dunn Critiques Simon Gathercole's Recent Book on Jesus

In Mark Goodacre's blog entry for November 26, 2006, he reported concerning a Synoptic Gospels session that he had organized for the SBL conference in Washington, D.C. Mark reported,

In spite of the interesting discussions, the thing that will remain with me for the longest will be, I think, Jimmy Dunn's strongly worded critique of his former student's book, which he accused of "wooden literalism", of "tritheism, ditheism or modalism"; and he said that Simon was in need of a "refresher course in hermeneutics". I am afraid that I could not resist adding after he had finished, "I am tempted to say: don't hold back; tell us what you really think." Simon defended his book bravely, and had not had either Deirdre's or Rikk's responses in advance, so he did particularly well on those.

Now, thanks to SBL's Review of Biblical Literature on-line, James D. G. Dunn reviews Simon Gathercole's recent book on Jesus, The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Here is a brief excerpt that refers to the SBL session.

I should perhaps add that the robustness of my response follows the character of our regular exchanges for many years now, which continued at the SBL Annual Meeting in Washington (November 2006), when I was on the panel reviewing his Pre-existence book. It is because I admire Dr. Gathercole’s scholarship and his ability to mount a weighty exegetical argument (from which I continue to learn), and because I believe it to be by such robust dialogue that discussion can progress most fruitfully (so I fully expect him to respond in the same manner), that I have offered this review.

Also, read Frank Matera's review of Gathercole's book.