Evangelizing Believers

"This story was written so that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and so, by believing, that YOU may have life in his name."

Assuming John wrote to a mixture of believers and unbelievers, then apparently John felt believers and unbelievers alike both needed to be "evangelized". And we do. So, then, what is True Evangelism?

If Evangelism is defined as sharing Jesus with someone so that they may believe and have life... why would anyone think we're supposed to do that only for non-christians?

Personally, although I do NOT believe every christian is necessarily called to attract new believers into the fold, I most certainly DO believe every christian is automatically gifted with a spirit and voice that is able to speak His Name. And this means that if someone will just teach us how, we can all be trained to bring Life to the church by speaking HIM to one another.

There is LIFE in His Name. Why do some act like the "laity" should minister Jesus Christ only to unbelievers, and never on Sunday morning?

Structure: Design vs. Longevity

The primary task of physical architecture is stability. All buildings need to stay up. Unfortunately, the sheer weight and straining against one another of pieces within the construction increases the already inherent drive towards self-destruction. All buildings want to fall down. Such is Physics on Earth.

Effectively designed structures redirect these destructive forces and channel them into the ground. Gravity is satiated. Stability depends on redirection of conflict and stress. (That should start your wheels turning...)

The primary challenge for physical architecture is longevity. Design to one set of standards and the building can last for a century. Design with less rigor and the place is going to be vacant much sooner, but suitable for a while. A house made of stone can be lived in for thousands of years. A tent made of leather and poles isn't meant to stay in one spot for so long. Either could work. It depends what the resident wants.

As with physical architecture, so with group dynamics. The way a group structures itself largely determines how long it remains stable. Experts report that large, long-lived, heterogeneous groups eventually institute some kind of permanent order... or else they die. Therefore, the question all groups churches struggle with is - Which of these four options is less tragic: being small, being short-lived, depending on commonalities, or fighting against institutionalism?

We all have to consider these options. Size is relative. Time gets away from us. Differences are always a struggle. Organizations are not always as strong as they seem to be. But the least challenged factor may be the all present one: Time. A question presents itself, perhaps rarely asked:

Does group structure have to be permanentized?

By the way, this is much more important than HC vs. IC. Whether House Churches pack up when the wet season ends or whether Institutional Churches embrace dry spells and constantly pray for revival [or whether we find some other mix, or some middle ground] we might all want to consider that longevity is strictly a variable, and stability is rarely infinite.

Any group practice repeated two times has been "instituted", but should all helpful habits become everlasting? Should any institutions become permanent?

If we permanentize institutions, do we not make them greater than God?

The only permanency on this earth is not of this earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but his Spirit blows where it will. Does it help much to pray for a "fresh move" if your group won't let the Mover do any actual moving? We humans covet stability. God likes to shake every thing that can be shaken. We humans need institutions, but we need God Himself oh so very much more.

In this fleeting life, change is a constant. What, then, in the Spirit? What then, for the church?

Liturgy is good. Structure is good. Leadership is good. Oversight is good. Change itself can be bad or good. But following Jesus (by definition) requires some change. Such is Physics on Earth.

Assuming God wants to move, God therefore wants to create change in position and time. Successful Renewal occurs when a people stays fixed on God in the present. Those who attempt to safeguard established institutions for all future time are aiming straight at a rut. Protecting the church from all change may as well be protecting the church from God Himself.

The fact that a Temple stands for a long time does not mean God is there. He does not live in houses maintained by human hands.

In all types of churches, it seems a desire to permanentize institutions is what ratchets up the negative side-effects of institutionalism. Meanwhile, social stability continues to depend on constant redirection of conflict and stress. It is possible to maintain a church structure that is never threatened by interpersonal traumas, but then where shall we direct our destructive energy? If God Himself cannot move in our church, how can God be the one to absorb all our drama? We might wind up maintaining stability but destroying the key pieces in our well crafted construction.

All church groups must learn how to balance dynamics and structure. Unstable people need some degree of stability and some degree of institutional longevity. In most cases, extremes are probably to be avoided. But God's own vision appears to be Unique.

All buildings need to stay up. All buildings want to fall down.

The house in the heavens that God showed to Moses could do both!

Consider these things...

Pauline Chronology

As of now, this is merely a rough sketch of where the most important key points in Pauline Chronology happen to lie. Someday I'll start writing this all out more appropriately, with supporting research and more sequential arguments. Until then, feel free to have a go at researching and publishing on this arrangement yourself. Just be sure to mention my name. :-)

The three points that will chiefly distinguish this chronology are as follows:

Antioch's relief gift had to be money (not grain) and so had to be early
Paul's plans changed to include Rome when the Emperor Claudius died
The best place to put Paul's execution is after the great fire of Rome

Fixing those three points amidst all the other significant data requires essentially one specific alignment of all other major events. Furthermore, this process compels us to make only one creative decision - to put Titus at Fair Havens with Paul, thereby concluding Paul had no part in Titus' earlier mission on Crete. To be sure, this offers a reading of Titus 1:5 which is far more economical and less speculative, historically, than all other suggested reconstructions for Titus' travels.

As a package, these points comprise my original contribution to the field of Pauline Chronology, which is simply a new set of boundaries for all other considerations. Based on solid historical judgments, those boundaries happen to be very tight. This is fortunate. The overarching framework of arguments and possibilities, of course, we all owe to many, many scholars and researchers who have gone before. Therefore, beyond the above points, all other evidence should be well established and easily locatable in standard reference manuals.

Note: In the rough sketch that now follows, many points are referred to ahead of time, and again after the fact. To anyone who has studied these issues, the overall argument should (hopefully) come across best if you read straight through this post, without skipping around at first.

========================================

Conversion - early 34 AD - No Roman Emperor ever "gave" Damascus to Nabatea but King Aretas sent the Ethnarch to get Paul at a time when Aretas was still active north of his own territory, which must have been before Tiberius died. It could not have been after. Among other reasons, we know this because the prefect Macro (successor to Sejanus) was essentially running the empire all year long in 37 AD, so Caligula was highly unlikely to reverse policy on Nabatea after Herod Antipas' letter. For more details, see here.

Antioch's relief commission - 44 AD - Because they could not have sent hundreds of ox carts with grain from the coast, especially in the middle of a famine, the church in Antioch must have sent Paul and Barnabas with money. That money was no good unless it came early enough that the church in Jerusalem could begin surreptitiously building a stockpile. (Even if they were going to give it away, the food bank had to built up in secret. Otherwise, what was the point?) Therefore, Paul and Barnabas did not wait until the famine itself (46/47 AD) and therefore Acts 11:30 and 12:25 cannot be extracted from Acts 12. If we leave Acts 12 just as it is written, then the relief visit happens in 44 AD and thus Galatians 2 cannot apply to an inclusive 14 year difference between Paul's conversion and this visit. Therefore, Galatians 2 most likely refers to the Council of Acts 15, despite those who still attempt to suppose an additional visit before the Council. For more on famine relief logistics, see here.

[***UPDATE (7/31/10):  If Agrippa died in March of 44, as holds the consensus, then the relief delivery and that traumatic Passover in which Luke sets it, both, belong to 43 AD.  Since Galatians 2 cannot refer to any year that's actually before the famine, anyway, this update is a moot point chronologically speaking, as far as affecting the rest of this timeline.  Update 2:  Red color added to text in paragraph above.  For more, see this post. ***]

Galatians - 50 AD - Writen to the four South Galatian churches of Acts; before the Epistle of James, but after the council; it was carried by Titus & Luke, who visited all four churches and went on to wait for Paul at Troas (the one city everyone knew how to find, in West Asia Minor); that Titus' circumcision *was even an issue* and *could have been* "compelled" strongly suggests that this visit was part of the council occasion and virtually confirms that Galatians 2 refers to Acts 15. Further, the fact that Paul expects the Galatians to know who Titus is most likely means Titus himself was the letter carrier. As a witness to the events in Jerusalem, Titus was the perfect one to send, and he could easily have been holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve, as additional support for Paul's position. Thus, Paul had no need to mention the shorter letter because Titus was probably carrying it also - presumably on loan from missionally-minded Antioch. (For even more on Galatians and the Council, see here, here, here, and (again) here.)

1st & 2nd Thessalonians - 51 AD - standard view easily dated by Gallio's time in Corinth. We should note here, for later, that Timothy seems to have trouble sticking with his assignment, and keeps running to Paul for assistance. He's going to do this again, 6 years later, in Ephesus.

Departure from Corinth - 52 AD - Paul must have talked with Peter in Jerusalem, about Corinth, somewhere in the middle or the end of sailing season in 52. At least, that is necessary in order for Peter to have sailed to Corinth here in 53 and caused so much trouble (53/54) in unfortunate preparation for a summer of letters going back and forth between Corinth and Paul, in 54. (On which date, see note at top, and see below.) Incidentally, many of the controversies that arose in Corinth around the time of Peter's visit bear striking parallels to the letter of Jerusalem, which suggests Paul had not shown it to Corinth, but that Peter had. Controversies over tongues and healing are also, most likely, symptomatic of Peter's visit.

Epistle of James - c.52 or 51 AD - Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 52 also means James' letter had probably been written by 52, because there is no chance James and Paul did not see each other during this visit, and that makes this the first chance they had to sit down and iron out their perceived differences [over things they didn't really disagree about, except perhaps semantically]. Circumcision was not argued in James' Epistle, and we have no record that James ever heard Paul say the things written in Galatians, before Galatians was written. James must have been responding, in part, to things Paul wrote in his first letter. (Church Councils are not magic cure-alls. They just aren't.)

1st Corinthians - 54 AD, before October - This is an especially critical point for aligning the rest of Paul's dates, and it is based on the fact that Paul talks about travel plans but does not include Rome. The Jews weren't allowed back in until Claudius died, and Paul's trip to Illyricum (Western Provincia Macedonia) must have been planned as part of preparations for going to Rome. Ephesus is also when Paul began speaking of Rome, according to Acts. Further, this letter must be 54, and could not be 53 because Claudius' death also best explains what interrupts Paul's stated plans to sail after Pentecost (which generally assured safe sailing weather; by the way, Paul's also had all of his first three shipwrecks by now).

2nd Corinthians - 56 AD, around November - Aristarchus, Secundus and Sopater evidently knew how to get through the Greek hinterland (Acts 20:4a). This letter mentions Macedonians currently visiting Corinth and Paul sounds as if he is following them there shortly. This must be at the end of Paul's Macedonian trip, for two reasons. First, the trip to the Adriatic and back (Acts 20:1-2 & Romans 15:19) must have taken over a year, and second, Timothy must have intercepted Paul in Thessalonica on Paul's way back from Dyrrachium, before Paul headed to Corinth. Timothy, of course, had been struggling in Ephesus since Paul left him there to go into Macedonia, and must have spent the winter of 54/55 building up enough angst & frustration to make Timothy, desperately, flee Ephesus to go seek out Paul's help (just as Timothy had done at least twice before, in Thessalonica). All of this means 2nd Corinthians cannot have been written until after Paul's trip to Illyricum, probably only a month or two before Paul himself returned to Achaia. Timothy simply had to leave Ephesus in time to be in Macedonia with Paul, in time to co-sign this epistle. (See also discussion on 1st Timothy, below.)

Romans - 57 AD - the turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 (not 60) is made necessary here by one of our three key starting points (at top) - that Paul was most likely executed in connection with the great fire of Rome. Again, confirming this point removes the need for those often but ill-conceived (and certainly purely contrived) later itineraries of Paul, Timothy and Titus. In fact, scholarship through the ages has generally considered Paul's death in 64 to be the first and most likely option. The only real obstacle to this has been an over-rigidity of interpreting Titus 1:5, as if Paul himself shared the work of the Cretan mission. (On this point, see above and below.)

1st Timothy - 57 AD - handed off in person, in Troas, giving Timothy one week to appoint the Ephesian Elders Paul met at Miletus. This most natural conclusion has been frequently put off without justifiable cause, and only requires 2nd Corinthians to be written in late 56 AD. (Look again at the discussion of Illyricum, Timothy and 2nd Corinthians, above.) On the need to explain who qualified as elders, Paul had only now formed his own personal stance on the issue of how to appoint/recognize them, since his separation from Barnabas. Timothy had not seen Gentile Christian Elders since the Judaizers so easily overcame the "elders" appointed mainly by Barnabas, in Galatia. (For more on this point, see here.)

Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians - 60 to 62 AD - The turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 puts Paul's arrival in Rome in early 60 and his release at 62. Somewhere during this imprisonment, these four "Prison Epistles" went out in two waves. Tychicus took the first three to cities near Ephesus because Colosse's own Epaphras came down with a serious illness. Then Epaphras (Epaphroditus) took Paul's thank you letter back to his new friends in Philippi. Most of this affects nothing else in Pauline Chronology, of course, but we note that after 11-ish years, Philippi now has elders. They were most likely appointed by Paul at his last visit, when Luke left, just while Paul was composing 1st Timothy, on his way to Troas.

Titus - 62 AD - This letter was probably written from Illyricum, which strongly suggests that Paul must have planted a church in Dyrrachium in 55/56, as a sort of a rest stop/half-way point for those from the churches who were heading to Rome after Claudius' death. (Again, see discussion on 2nd Corinthians above.) In any event, the cheapest and most efficient itinerary from Rome to Nicopolis was taking the Appian Way to one of the ferries at Brindisi (Brundisium) that sailed directly over to Dyrrachium. From there, the road south leads to Nicopolis. Later on, Titus winds up north of Dyrrachium, heading to Dalmatia. (A church in Dyrrachium is also attested by inscription, cited by the Jesuit scholar Farlati centuries ago - on which, look up Edwin E. Jacques.) Finally, a church in Dyrrachium could also explain where Erastus spent all his time after Acts 19:22, before heading to Corinth (2.Tim 4:20).

T.2. Titus, we presume, had remained on Crete since Paul left him there, at Fair Havens. The only question is, where had Titus been before? Obviously, considering this involves some conjecture, but it is probably necessary if we stick to the natural conclusion that Paul died in 64 AD. Besides, in what follows, only the details require conjecture, which is far more reasonable than inventing four years worth of additional travels.

T.3. We know Paul was at Crete at least once and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus at least once. Putting these two points together with Titus 1:5 suggests Titus was present at Fair Havens. He must therefore have been part of Paul's sailing party, and he must have abandoned that party - probably because Paul knew from experience that their odds of shipwreck were high, and so one of them had to survive so the churches could know what had happened in case Paul really did die at sea. Besides that, Titus had been on Crete recently, after which he must have visited Caesarea and gotten on board with Luke and Aristarchus.

T.4. Now, if Luke intended Acts at least partly as a defense of Paul for his trial at Rome, and if Paul's three companions were also somehow under the centurion's special jurisdiction (perhaps as witnesses being shipped in at state's expense?) then Titus disappearing at Fair Havens could also explain why Luke deleted Titus from the record. Since only citizens or their slaves were allowed to testify in Rome, Paul (seriously) could simply have 'enslaved' his three friends (a loophole that Roman Law could not have anticipated!) planning to 'free' them later.

T.5. In any event, we know Paul was at Fair Havens and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus. Somehow or another, Titus must have been at Fair Havens, at which point Paul told him to continue the work which he (Titus only, not Titus with Paul) had already begun. Paul also told Titus to appoint elders in every church before he left the island. This point evidently failed to get through to Titus, probably because the church in Antioch made crisis-level decisions without elders (Acts 15:2). Therefore, Paul had to explain to Titus what elders were because (like Timothy from 50 to 57 AD) Titus had never been part of a church that had elders. (As mentioned above, for more on Paul's evolving opinions about elders, see this post.)

T.6. It should be clear now what I meant that only the details require conjecture. The bottom line on dating Titus should be, in my humble opinion, that IF Paul died under Nero in 64 AD (which has always been the most natural conclusion to draw from Tacitus' report on the great fire and from Paul's second letter to Timothy) then Titus must have been at Fair Havens. It's the only time we know for certain that Paul was there, and educated guesswork to get Titus there with Paul is far more reasonable than inventing entirely new travels for both of them.

T.7. Note well: The only necessary conclusions on this point are that Titus was with Paul at Fair Havens, had previously begun the mission there without Paul's assistance, nevertheless received instructions from Paul at Fair Havens (about how to finish what Titus had begun), and remained on Crete when Paul sailed away. For all we know, Titus could have just wandered onto the beach at the right time, simply by divine providence - but of course, this is not my argument. This is only to make clear that all suppositional details in the previous paragraphs were included merely to show at least one very plausible scenario which might have occurred. Most of Titus' itinerary will simply have to remain a mystery, but again (for the last time) this is far better than inventing four years worth of additional travels.

2nd Timothy - early 64 AD - before the fire, and with enough time for Timothy to receive the letter and still have a chance to reach Rome "before winter". Tacitus' account of events in this year are a much more convincing explanation for the tradition that Paul was considered worthy of execution.

Spain - N/A - Paul's plans didn't always materialize. The trick is to realize, there is no Spain. ;-)

========================================

There you go. That's Pauline Chronology in a nutshell, according to me. Someday, of course, I really must write this up properly, supporting these dates and arguments to the strongest extent possible. Until then - or if I never get around to it - this is pretty much the basics of everything I've got to say on the subject.

If anyone wants to start working on this before I get to it, please feel free. I've got enough else to do for the next several years writing up everything that goes from 9 BC until 37 AD. I don't mind sharing at all.

Personal Observations: A lot of the difficulties that get ironed out in this treatment happen to reveal, I believe, strong institutional/religious biases in previous faith-based scholarship on Pauline Chronology. I deeply wish I didn't have to bring it up, but it really does need to be noticed. Certain aspects of the traditional, ecclesiastical dogmas about the Jerusalem Council and the lateness of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" seem to be partly responsible for what has kept Pauline Chronology in dispute for so long. If all three "Pastorals" get to occupy an extra four years of vague, non-contextual space-time, then Titus and Timothy look more like permanent local preachers. This may seem shocking, but it must be considered.

Since my own past experience and outspoken preference for house churches is well known, I must admit this sequence could alter (or cleanse) our view of Pauline ecclesiology somewhat. That may be debatable but Paul's ecclesiology does not have to be ours, at any rate. No christian assembly that I know of is currently following Paul's pattern precisely. Besides this, the "Descriptive/Prescriptive" argument is a much more impenetrable defense than pre-emptive gerrymandering of dates (whether or not that is even partly what has been going on).

In any event, the historian's (or exegete's) job is to judge based on facts in evidence, and not to consider potential relevance of any conclusions beforehand. Given the evidence (as laid out above) I would contend that Pauline Chronology seems to have been unfairly beset by institutional biases, although much of it is undoubtedly subconscious. Of course, if it is fully aware, such cheating simply must come to an end.

I would also contend - and here is why this all had to be said - that this mostly explains why no one has solved Pauline Chronology more efficiently or sufficiently than this, before now, and why I myself (an untrained, if unashamed amateur) managed to happen upon it. In any case, if I've put together the argument I think I have, it deserves to be looked at. And no matter who looks here, none of us should allow ourselves to manipulate the data to support our church government practices. Pauline ecclesiology was primitive.

It is a simple historical fact that nobody in the New Testament performed the job duties of a medieval priest or a protestant "pastor". That's really not a big deal, unless we feel the need to pretend otherwise. It's really not even a problem, unless we let tradition or dogma inhibit us from viewing the full context of Paul's letters, as they properly ought to be viewed.

I've been going over this and over this for five years, and unless I'm missing something very significant, I believe I can make the following statement with all confidence.

This really must be the most likely solution to Pauline Chronology, period.

Your comments, questions and challenges are warmly invited, as long as this post remains online.

Dating the Crucifixion: Sadducees, Calendars and Festival Finances

Why did the Sadducees prefer to have Pentecost always on Sunday? The primary motivation had to be financial. If the one-day long festival starts Saturday night, then wealthier pilgrims who were staying in town (not the poorer ones who camped out in the countryside) had to stock up on supplies and be in their rented rooms before Friday at sundown. The Sadducees stayed in power chiefly by serving the needs of Jerusalem's upper class. For a one day festival, keeping Pentecost on Sunday doubles the minimum revenues that might be expected.

In contrast, the Pharisees wanted Pentecost on Sivan 6th because they cared more about arguing over disputable minutiae. It is this same Pharisaic attitude which characterizes much of the Rabbinic discussion found in the Mishnah and Talmud, and which brings us to the point of this post.

Roger Beckwith's impressive compendium of chronological issues [especially on first century Jewish intercalation] concludes [in chapter 9] that Jesus' crucifixion could have occurred in any year between 30 and 36, except 34. However, Beckwith's conclusion relies heavily on assessments of rabbinic disputes about marking the new year, all of which seem to have come from 2nd century or later. At the very least, such legal perfectionism is more characteristic of the Pharisees, who rose to power after Jerusalem's destruction. And although Beckwith asserts it is "by no means impossible" that the "formula" for these citations may date to before 70 AD, it is very difficult to believe the ruling Sadducees would have cared as much, at the time.

Practically speaking, if Beckwith really expects us to believe his citations reflect standard practice before 70 AD, I have only one question - How could anyone ever have made plans to attend the spring festival? Granted, Jews far beyond Palestine could never set sail in time to make Passover anyway, but Alexandria and Antioch were three weeks from Jerusalem by foot, or two weeks by horse, and pilgrims like Simon of Cyrene might have traveled for over a month to arrive at the festival on any particular date. How would such pilgrims have known when to leave home, if the festival dates weren't solidified until just a month or two before the event?

Beckwith cites Rabban Gamaliel II (surely a Pharisee) who once advised that a particular new year needed to be delayed until the first grains were ripe, and the stocks of turtledoves and lambs were healthier. Beckwith is probably right to argue that the mention of turtledoves marks a principle passed down from before the destruction of Temple, but that itself does not mean the letter was written before 70 AD. Even if it was, we must note that the Rabban's advisement is unlikely to have influenced the Saducees, whose most-valued constituents could just as easily sell out undersized stocks to the captive pilgrims upon arrival. An extra month might fatten up profit margins a little, but not if they lost more on volume. The greater consideration, in order to maximize revenues, was to maximize the size of the customer base.

Since the Sadducees were in charge, earthly concerns must have ruled the calendar. Last minute scheduling would hardly encourage more pilgrims to schedule the journey - even Palestine Jews could lose a month from their schedules for two weeks of travel and two weeks in the city. The wealthier the pilgrim, the more at home responsibilities, the less they might appreciate being held up until the last minute. Besides, how would they have received the news? If a decision was made in mid-February to delay Passover until mid-April, instead of mid-March, some pilgrims would not have heard about it until they had already embarked. This could not have been standard.

If we assume along with Beckwith, for the sake of argument, that Rabban Gamaliel II was a pre-70 Pharisee, a strong likelihood of rejection would most likely NOT have dissuaded him from advising his political superiors anyway. Point being: whenever this citation dates to, it merely offers advice. There is no indication that it necessarily had any chance of being heeded, before 70 AD. In fact, it is more likely to reflect that a group of Pharisees merely made practice of marking their opinions as a matter of course, while patiently waiting until such time as they might finally gain power. Of course when they did gain power, after 70 AD, there were no more logistical obstacles against making intercalation as impractical as their Pharisaic hearts desired. At that point, the Diaspora's need-to-know notwithstanding, the practice of dating the New Year became purely academic.

Furthermore, the contentions of Pharisees were not necessarily on significant matters. To begin with, the Sadducees would never have scheduled Passover for February, and probably not for early March. Beckwith supposes an early spring could have sometimes demanded a schedule change, but the harshness of winter has as much if not more to do with the springtime readiness of crops and livestock. The dates on which new moons happened to fall would dictate what choices were available for the Passover month, and in most years the decision should have been obvious far in advance. A Passover in mid-march might have been debatable, but very early March would be too soon to trust and late April would be too late in any year.

A first century objector, holding Gamaliel's opinion, could not have been writing against a February Passover, because the Sadducees would never have risked making such a ridiculous schedule far in advance. More likely, the letter would stand to oppose a mid to late March Passover, in which case, the financial considerations of the landed classes still favored maximizing the customer base over increasing portion sizes.

An early or mid March Passover could arguably have been scheduled. However, while granting (to Beckwith) that the equinox was not yet an official guideline, the Sadducees would still have preferred scheduling Passover to fall on the warmer of full moons available, as long as that was not too late. Again, practical concerns favored scheduling for late March to mid April, equinox or no equinox. And again, under the ruling class, Pharisaic meticulousness need not have been more than a formality.

Beckwith's major argument boils down to supposing that a first century objector could have argued in 30 AD against a March 8th Passover, or in 31 AD against March 27th, or in 32 AD against March 15th, or in 33 AD against March 5th, or in 34 against March 23rd, or in 35 against March 12th, or in 36 against March 1st. Perhaps he could have, but look again at those dates.

As discussed, March 1st, 5th or 8th are highly unlikely to have been scheduled in the first place. March 23rd or 27th would be highly unlikely to have been postponed. March 12th and 15th might perhaps have been scheduled, as being near to but not after the Equinox, but still the Saduccees would most likely have refused to postpone. [On the contrary, the Saducees would probably have preferred an April 14th to a March 15th (in 32 AD) and an April 11th to the March 12th (in 35).]

Once more, the major point is that the Sadducees would be unlikely to have postponed what was doubtless already expected across mideast Asia. Adhering to legal perfectionism at the last possible minute simply would have been bad business. Just as bad for business would have been scheduling a Passover for February or early March. Late winter was simply too risky, and mid-April was far preferable to mid-March, even apart from the equinox. These considerations drastically reduces the variability of Beckwith's conclusion, brining the balance of questions about intercalation (basically) back to daily record keeping and nightly lunar observation.

On this last point, we should expect the Sadducees would at least bow to tradition whenever expedient (tradition surely enhancing the pull for more pilgrims, and thus for more revenues) and the festival traditionally began on a full moon. Therefore - assuming all other intercalation procedures revolved around making sure that Nissan began on a new moon and that Passover began on a full moon, we are probably justified in following the basic metonic cycles to determine when Jesus was most likely crucified.

Since the only years left in question (32 or 35) do not affect this consideration, the chief options must remain 30 and 33 AD. From there, a chronological study of Christ's public ministry (compared with the start of John the Baptist's ministry) should settle the crucifixion firmly in early April of 33 AD.

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

One further note, of potential importance: according to astronomical reckoning, 26, 33 and 36 AD are the only years under Pontius Pilate in which the most likely reckoning of Sivan 6th naturally fell on a Sunday. The presence of the crowds in Acts chapter 2 confirms that this Pentecost fell on a Sunday, but - as the Pharisees probably had the proper interpretation of God's instructions to Moses about dating Pentecost - the double occasion of Pentecost falling on Sivan 6th could be seen (by some) as a more appropriate date for the typological "baking of the loaf" that corresponds with the first church's "birth".

Obviously, this last point is theological, circumstantial and potentially meaningless. On the other hand, it may be deeply meaningful. Either way, it is worth noting. At most, however, theologians should only consider it as potential confirmation of a sound historical conclusion. It does not count as support.

Galatians goes AFTER Acts 15

It would be impolite and probably unjust to call this quote "complete idiocy", but it is more than fair to say I find it completely illogical.

Paul's silence in that letter to his converts in Galatia as to the decision of the Jerusalem Council forces the irreconcilable dilemma of saying either (1) that Luke’s account in Acts 15 of a decision reached in Paul’s favor at Jerusalem is pure fabrication, or (2) that Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council.

OR (3) Luke's account is factual, Paul wrote Galatians after the Council, and Paul had his reasons for deliberately failing to mention the whole Jerusalem fiasco. Duh.

We cannot form historical judgments based on happy fantasies that James and Paul got everything all worked out nicely. By all accounts, they didn't. Acts 15 never says one word about Paul's feelings about Jerusalem's decision, so it gives us no reason to expect Paul was or was not a fan of their letter. The church in Antioch took it as an encouragement. Of course they did. Circumcision was officially out of contention and the church at Antioch was 16 years old, mature enough to know it didn't have to obey Jerusalem's three laws! But Galatia was not yet so wise.

We can tell that Paul never mentioned Jerusalem's letter to Corinth because it was not until after Peter's visit that the Corinthians developed all kinds of controversy and questions about food, idols and 'es-ee-ex'. The fact that Paul does not mention Jerusalem's letter does not mean it did not yet exist. It could just as easily mean that Paul did not like the letter. OR, Paul could have been keeping that letter in reserve.

How did the Galatians know who Titus was? The simplest solution is that Titus carried the letter (probably together with Luke). If Galatians 2 is about the Council, Titus was an eyewitness to everything Paul writes about it. Titus was also in Antioch when Paul rebuked Peter. Titus also could have been holding Jerusalem's letter, in which case Paul would have no need to mention it in his own writing.

Put yourself in Galatia's shoes. Paul & Barnabas told you things about Jerusalem. The local Jews (in 2 of 4 cities) told you things about Jerusalem. Then the Judaizers told you things about Jerusalem. How confused would you then be about "the mother church" right up until the day Paul's letter shows up? Now put yourself in Paul's shoes. If you knew the Galatians were that confused about who and what Jerusalem really is, would you really expect them to believe "Jerusalem" agrees with you - and not with the Judaizers - about circumcision? That's why Titus holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve makes good strategy. Still doubting, Galatians? Okay. So now look at this.

Finally, put yourself in the historian's shoes. If we assume Galatians was written after the Council, what would that tell us about Paul's feelings for Jerusalem? Nothing that would be at all inconsistent with the rest of Paul's letters or his next two trips to Judea.

I don't know who Richard Longenecker is, but if I assume he's not an idiot, should I not then assume he's desperately fudging things on purpose? Or blindly following others who once made the same arguments? I don't know. You tell me.

Who benefits if we present a view of Paul submitting to the will of the established "mother church"? Who benefits if we present a church that became at peace politically after theological conflicts (James/Galatians) got ironed out? Who benefits if we present the high assembly of elders and apostles as an effective end to all dispute and division? Who benefits? You know who, saints. You know who.

The Jerusalem above is our mother. Come out of the slave woman.

The Ideal Church...

Might not look just like this, but this might be pretty close. TC challenged me to describe it. Ideal being ideal, remember this is something to shoot for. It also happens to be what I see consistently modeled in the NT, from John the Baptist and Jesus to Timothy and Titus. The first aspect you might want to notice, which people tend to leave out of their church models, is the passage of TIME. Life is not static. Anyway...

***********************

Pick a town in the world. Any culture. Two or more gifted believers, called and sent by God, gather a group of believers and train them to function as the church.

Over a period of perhaps 1 to 8 years, the planters teach brothers and sisters how to provide ALL the needs of the body. At the same time, these instigators are working for the day when they will no longer be there. The instigators must gradually decrease so that Christ in the body may increase.

In the initial phases, different members of the group will naturally and gradually begin to display certain aptitudes, including teaching and oversight. With the workers' help, the body will learn to recognize, appreciate and share these gifts for the good of the church. However, the most gifted individuals do not necessarily become overseers/elders/shepherds. Also, as the o/e/s's gain experience, they do not necessarily "lead" more often than anyone else. Elders are not necessarily teachers and teachers are not necessarily leaders. The body learns how to provide for its own needs, and everyone's contribution is considered a part of God's building-up process.

The elders, in a way, eventually become the most necessary, but also the least visibly active. These "supervisors" are servants, like everyone else, offering their giftedness when called upon moreso than at their own discretion. A chief role of the church workers (planters, trainers) is to coach the group into interdependency. Settling into ruts will be avoided by openness to fresh suggestions. We are not here to be comfortable. We are here to challenge each other to love and to good works in Him.

Meeting styles will vary. Everyone is free to suggest and provide direction for group activities, including meetings. The body decides, with patient oversight, what activities to pursue more often than others, but reserves times for other ways of gathering as well. Trial and error ensues, but some reliable standards emerge. All the while, learning continues. Our main goal is not to set things in stone that will stand for a thousand years like Solomon's Temple. The Lord's house on Earth is a Tent that can Move! (That's what he said to Moses, anyway.)

Remember, during these years, the original workers are still with the group, guiding, directing and training... but also pulling back as appropriate, and as possible. After the training wheels are completely off, the 'apostles' continue meeting with the church for a year or so, without functioning in any leadership or decision making capacities whatsoever. Their passive presence encourages the church to shed its last vestige of 'adolescence'. The 'apostles' themselves might rest during this phasing-out period or they might use the time to plan and prepare their next 'mission' field (not too close to this one). In this final year, the planters also keep a sharper eye than ever on the church, which finally stands on the verge of being left alone.

In years to come, after the planters depart, the church has two (or more) outside resources to call upon who can visit, provide long distance encouragement. A young adult leaving home still needs help from "mom and dad", but not so often and not so much. On occasion, the church planters might return if the church and its elders are stymied by some difficult matter. An outside perspective can be helpful, especially if the 'apostles' aren't compromised by salary, because - I forgot to mention - they've been supporting themselves with careers all this time!

The brothers and sisters have learned how to keep one another fixed on Jesus Christ, and to lean on, wait on, and stand in Him during all seasons of life. This is what they've been trained for. They have top-down oversight, bottom-up leadership, they've been trained to listen for God's voice to potentially come from any member of Christ's body, and they still have recourse to their founders, when necessary.

That, in a nutshell, is my ideal church. That's what I see in Ephesians 4.

************

On top of that, if I could really daydream for a minute, everyone in the church ought to be less than 3 minutes from each others' houses by car, if not bike, if not foot. Ancient cities were less than one mile square, and urban sprawl is incredibly recent, historically speaking.

Remember, Ideal being Ideal... we should take what we can get. But I think this is what we should shoot for. Scratch that. Work towards and prepare for. Most of us aren't ready to go for it yet, but I believe we can get there.

Any Questions?

Faith Based Historiography

Christian believers read the scriptures by faith. Historians reconstruct events based on probability. Apologists explain away difficulties. And critics simply challenge everything. These four approaches each have weaknesses matching their strengths. Things did not happen a certain way just because we like to think so. Strict probability cannot accept miraculous events. Faith is limited by the reliability of its object. But even the most confirmed skeptics have to trust someone, eventually.

One central aspect of attempting historical reconstruction, from scripture, is that even a faith based approach must proceed at some point according to probabilities and completely abandon the desire for absolute proof. (For one example, we may accept Luke’s testimony that there was a census, but unless we wish to call it a mythical census we must endeavor do reconstruct an historical census – which is to say, a most likely one. For another, people may have different ideas about Jesus' upbringing in Nazareth, but we should all acknowledge that he grew up as a part of a Synagogue and begin reconstruction from there.) Some details of our conclusions may be less than perfectly certain, but what scripture does tell us should help comfort us against what it does not.

If my goal was the conversion of skeptics, I might be tempted to overstate my case. Instead, I begin from the standpoint of faith. If my goal was defense of the scriptures, I might focus completely on the problem areas and miss the whole forest for those few crooked trees. Instead, I suspend judgment on what seems confusing and work at all times primarily from what seems most clear. My goal is to encourage believers by reconstructing one, most likely chronology and thus grant Bible readers a broader historical context of events in the New Testament era. If I succeed in that goal, with whatever qualification, the result could be worth an awful lot, don't you think?

My sincere hope is that a more objective historiography can still preference the scriptures without preferencing any religious philosophies or doctrinal interpretations of any particular traditions. Theologies supported by that which the scripture itself does not necessarily and clearly state are suspect anyway, in my humble opinion. Institutional doctrines have defended the faith adequately for centuries, but the faithful are less and less content to be socially or intellectually cloistered by parochial dogmas.

Therefore, it is my secondary hope that we focus on reconstructing events, instead of ideological truths, the bedrock of our faith may be held more securely by those who feel compelled to wander outside institutional walls into God's wilderness. Like parents caring for willfully wayward children, I would hope ecclesiastical authorities get behind such an idea more quickly than not. We have many brothers and sisters adrift, who need truly non-denominational support for their faith. We cannot keep them at home where they were raised, but we can equip them more ably for wherever the journey might lead them.

Getting back to the point: God can never be proven to those with a non-divine standard of proof, but since the Church is called to make disciples, we should attempt a faith based historiography that is profitable for instilling the people of God with a more contextual view of the New Testament. Whatever we do, the best witness to scripture’s reliability will always be the spirit of God, which speaks and has spoken through the church throughout the centuries. At least, so we believe.

Believers, keep trusting the scriptures. Historians, keep dealing with likelihoods. Apologists, keep on defending beliefs. And critics, please keep on challenging everyone. We all want to be as accurate as possible and we all need to admit that we’ll never know everything. All I am suggesting is that we may proceed from a simple, conditional challenge: Assuming that details found in the scriptures are both true and factual, so far as we can tell, how do those facts fit together, historically, with each other, and with their own contemporary events?

The Promise of Nazareth - 2

[Part 2 of 2] Jesus of Nazareth was every bit as human as we are, so he must have had an advantage. John's Gospel shows us (more clearly than the others) that the Father was intimately involved in Jesus' life. He was not a puppet master. He was not a taskmaster. He was not a power ring. He was a Father. Somewhere between birth and age thirty-four, Jesus learned how to pray, listen for, hear and talk with his Father. Most of us with human fathers will barely be able to relate or imagine what this must have been like, but their relationship was the context for everything.

If he lived by his own teachings, then he must have been living with Encouragement. Therefore, like probably none of us since, Jesus of Nazareth spent three decades practicing God's presence. That ability grew. It developed. Baby Jesus was not quoting the scripture and teenage Jesus was not doing miracles. But from childhood, Jesus took strongly to heart the two "greatest commandments". He genuinely sought to love God with a holistic devotion. His love for the least was love as unto His Father. Thus, the Father was Jesus' advantage. The Life of the Father was in Him. He had emptied himself, but the one thing Life does is, it grows. Over three decades, it filled Him up. Life, abundantly.

On Easter Sunday night, Jesus gave his disciples the same advantage. Life came within. When the church was born at Pentecost, and in Samaria, Peter & John gave them the same advantage. God's Spirit could now move within them. Thirty days after Pentecost may or may not have been as strong an advantage as thirty years in Nazareth, and beginning any serious pursuit from childhood always pays tremendous long term dividends. But He gave Us this same Advantage. Thanks to the Cross, we should understand that God's expectations have far less to do with our lives now, than God's Hope.

The Law came through Moses. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and pleased God. Thus, Jesus Christ brought us God's Favor. Christ lived by God's Life, abundantly, and I think He did that partly just to prove it could be done. But if He did not live that Life, then how could we honor Him for asking us to live that Life? Expectation and irony have nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount. Idealism is closer, but still not quite right. The practical truth is that only the Life of God can live up to the standard of God. But that Life is Jesus Christ, in His Spirit. And that Standard is Jesus Christ, who still delights His Father.

By the way, if you're not quite that full of Him yet (like the rest of us) don't sweat it. Stay rooted in His Life within. Drink in the water. Stretch to the Light. And keep growing. That's what Life does, after all. In Nazareth, Jesus Christ had this Life, this advantage, beginning to develop from a fairly early age. We are older, but we are like Him in that we need time to develop in Life, after becomming believers. We now have the same Spirit in our human spirits that was in his human spirit. Plus, we have his blood. Plus, we are in Him who is eternally pleasing to Him.

The fact that Christ pleased God, in Nazareth, is something we should really celebrate.

Dating Paul's "Conversion"

IF the Arabian (Nabatean) King Aretas ever occupied Damascus, it would have been before 37 AD. It could not have been after. Ogg missed this. Jewett missed this. Bowersock pointed it out in 1983 and few have acknowledged it since. The historical context is vital to Pauline chronology AND to the chronology of the earliest church in Jerusalem.

Here's the very-skinny. In 20 BC, the Kingdom of Zenodorus was granted to Herod the Great even though it had been promised to Nabatea. The Nabateans made trouble in Trachonitis until Aretas betrothed his daughter to Antipas (c.1 BC/1 AD) and Philip managed to forge good relations with the Nabateans in his Tetrarchy. But Antipas broke the treaty when he married Herodias (28/29 AD) and Philip's death (33/34 AD) filled the old Kingdom of Zenodorus with an absolute power vacuum.

Tiberius (undoubtedly with, through or by proxy of Macro, the new Praetorian Prefect after Sejanus) officially annexed Philip's Tetrarchy into Provincia Syria. But Syria had been suffering from a power vacuum of its own. The Proconsul Lamia was an absentee Governor for ten years until Pomponius Flaccus [not to be confused with the Egyptian Prefect hated by Philo] arrived in 32. But Flaccus died in office in 33 and Tiberius (and/or Macro) sent L. Vitellius in 35, more than a whole year after Philip and Flaccus had both died.

Presumably, Vitellius was to establish the new status of Philip's Tetrarchy, but Vitellius had his hands full immediately with conflict on all sides. Dealing with the Parthian invasion of Armenia occupied Vitellius' first two summers while the Governor also sent one of his four Legions to help Cappadocia against a mountain tribe of Cilicians. Meanwhile, Herod Antipas had taken the liberty of sending his own small army to occupy the strategic fortress-city of Gamala in the Golan Heights. But while Antipas was at the Euphrates making peace with the Parthian King Artabanus, the Nabatean army took Gamala and crushed Herod's army.

By early 37, Vitellius was marching south, but purposely dawdled, resenting Antipas for taking credit about the Euphrates treaty in a letter to the Emperor. Tiberius (and/or Macro) had ordered Vitellius to avenge Antipas, but Vitellius lingered in Jerusalem after Passover until news arrived of Tiberius' death. At that, the Governor took his Legions back north. Gamala had already been reclaimed (officially for Syria) and Aretas had long since retreated. And just by coincidence, almost simultaneously, in Rome, the new Emperor Caligula (and his chief advisor, Macro) were appointing Antipas' nephew, Herod Agrippa, as the new King of the old Kingdom/Tetrarchy.

According to our records, Aretas did not attack or press through Trachonitis under Agrippa. It is extremely doubtful that Aretas could have managed possessions from the other side of Agrippa. And Aretas was somewhere in his 60's already, at least. He had been king since 9/8 BC. Two years after Caligula made Agrippa King of Trachonitis and the Golan, Aretas died, in 39 AD.

That's the whole skinny. Now here's the point.

It had long been assumed, by a very poor reading of 2nd Corinthians 11:32, that Aretas must have been granted Damascus by Rome, and the next argument went that since Tiberius sent Vitellius after Aretas, it must have been the nutsy Caligula. These arguments required skepticism of Josephus on Gamala as the point of battle, since the Golan was not an official "boundary" between Antipas and Aretas. But Josephus said Gamala, so the territorial issues must go back to the old grudge over Zenodorus. Only Bowersock (Roman Arabia, 1983) makes complete sense out of Tacitus, Josephus and Paul on this issue.

My own tiny contribution to this conversation is that Macro alone should be enough to debunk the old argument that Caligula suddenly did an about face from Tiberian policy. For all practical purposes, Macro was running the Empire in all twelve months of 37 AD, besides which Caligula never showed any interest in foriegn policy, except for the Temple worship fiasco in 39/40. Caligula merely gave his 'uncle Herod' a Kingdom as a reward for his friendship in recent years. Herod's Kingship, of course, is another issue the old arguments failed to deal with. If Caligula had wanted to give Damascus to anyone, it should have been Agrippa.

The Conclusion: Paul's "three years" in Arabia must end before winter of 36/37 and therefore his conversion must be dated to 33/34.

The Challenge: If we also take 33 as the year of Christ's Passion and Pentecost, what does that do to our view of the earliest church in Jerusalem? Tentatively clinging to 30 AD, which has become increasingly difficult to defend in recent decades except by appeal to tradition, seems to be motivated in some cases by a bias towards keeping Acts 1-8 in a long stretch of years. I think it was less than four months, but that's a story for some other time...

Ancient Literacy ~ Internet Literacy

A question for congregational christians in 2009: Does your church have a website? What percentage of your members would you guess know how to surf to that website? What percentage were involved with setting up that website? Or could have been? Anyone?

We live in a culture where Computer Literacy is broad, but varies greatly in depth. Ancient Literacy was the same way, especially among the Jews. Today, most people can surf to a website, and anyone can look at it. Fifteen years ago few could even surf. I think these proportions suggest a practical model for thinking about ancient literacy. It was broad, but varried greatly in depth.

Every Synagogue member could hear scripture read, but fewer of them could actually read aloud. Literacy rates soared among the Jews after 70 AD. Before then, we're not sure. But just like most of us have to hire professionals to program our computers and design our websites (and companies to facilitate our free blogs), the ancient world in all epochs had very few writers. However, they all valued writings.

"These words.. shall be on your heart.. teach them.. talk of them.. bind them as a sign.. write them on the doorposts..... then watch yourself that you do not forget the Lord..." (Deut 6:6-12) The most uneducated housewife could fondly look on her doorpost at unintelligible symbols and recall what she had been told that it meant. In the same way today, the clerics among us are rare, but they exist because we rely on their skill, because we need and we value their product.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The low rate of literacy does NOT make it more likely there were no early writings among Jesus' followers. The high rate of value ascribed to literature, not to mention the community minded attitudes of the ancient Jews, makes it highly likely that the earliest Jesus followers would have conscripted one literate person among their numbers to start writing things down!

They all valued writings about Moses and Elijah. Is it possible they neglected to give Jesus the same consideration? Jesus talked about scripture all the time. Is it possible they didn't value his words at least as much as the words he was quoting? I am firmly convinced any twelve guys can be blind idiots about very significant details, but in three years of following Him around and asking each other, "What was that he said the other day?" Don't you think one of them, at least once, spoke up and said, "Do we have anybody who can write some of this down?"

The scholarly writer leads a largely solitary life, but the early believers did almost nothing alone. If even one of the 120 was literate, the odds are very high indeed that the group, as a group, encouraged that one to begin some kind of written record. Of course, we don't have that record. We may or may not be able to speculate with much confidence on who wrote it or whether it informed the Gospels as a source. But I do think we should at the very least be more expectant that such a record of Jesus' words and deeds did exist, than that it did not.

Blogger's Bias - True Confession

From 1996 until 2007 I was privileged to be a member in three sister house churches that attempted to meet more like the pattern of first century Christians in Paul’s churches. I continue to encourage those who experiment with house churches (because God knows most of them don’t have a clue what they’re doing, which is fine for a while) but my own life has moved in a different direction. My passion for finding a model for primitive church became a passion to reconstruct the larger historical context of the New Testament for its own sake. The story of early Christianity is a very different story in many ways than the story of present day Christendom, but I now stand with John P. Meier who said “Relevance is the enemy of History.” Events, inasmuch as they can be known from testimony and reconstruction, deserve their own say.

With that said, there is no doubt in my mind a better view of the first century story will inspire many believers to consider those primitive ways. I do hope some will, but I do not think that means everyone should apply this new vision in just the same ways, because God was somehow pleased to put His spirit in each of us. Therefore I wish to state for the record that those who determine the old ways are not necessarily supposed to be our ways, as long as they stick to The Way, are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Besides, when you look at the entire New Testament, there was never just one way to “do church”. Even Paul did not plant churches the same way every time. But God Himself always plants a church with His Spirit, and always works to center them on His Son.

Therefore, my only quarrel is with anyone who would attempt to force our view of scripture to match their own doctrine, tradition and dogma. It has been true for too many centuries that ecclesiastical authorities have molded our views on scripture to support their own institutional needs. More and more, that is changing. Hopefully, it may yet change enough for a fuller context of the New Testament to be welcomed by every believer. No matter what traditions groups of Christians embrace today, I am absolutely positive that God’s spiritual blessing follows contrite hearts who devote themselves to Him. Tradition is fine as long as it does not usurp His first place in all things. And although we will surely continue to differ in traditions, this ancient heritage belongs to us all. So as we work together restoring our heritage, I ask only one thing.

Enjoy it, dear saints in the Lord.

Appointing Elders: Barnabas vs. Paul

Barnabas was the senior member of their partnership. Barnabas had been a wealthy landowner. Barnabas had received the spirit and the gospel directly from the apostles in Jerusalem. Barnabas had been selected by thousands of people to be in charge of their food. Barnabas had been an apostle of Peter, before he was an apostle of the Holy Spirit. Barnabas had the deeper resume. Barnabas had more experience. Barnabas had Paul's admiration and respect.

Barnabas helped send Paul away from Jerusalem, retrieved Paul from Tarsus and led Paul to Antioch. Barnabas is mentioned before Paul in Acts until Paul becomes the chief speaker at Antioch Pisidia. From that point on Luke rotates their name order, but it was still Barnabas whom the Lycaonians pegged as Zeus. Barnabas and Paul went to Barnabas' homeland of Cyprus but Paul and Barnabas turned back after Derbe instead of going through the Lion's Gate into Paul's homeland of Cilicia. In their final act as co-workers, Barnabas and Paul appointed elders in all three (or four?) churches on that return trip.

Barnabas had known christian elders in Jerusalem. Paul never lived in Jerusalem as a believer. But Antioch was the first gentile church in the world, and Luke shows us that congregation could handle crisis level decisions without reference to elders, which suggests the church in Antioch may never have recognized any such officers. Given all of the above, we should emphasize that it was most likely Barnabas (with Paul) who decided to appoint "elders" in four brand new Galatian churches.

Unfortunately, however, those elders weren't worth a whole lot of practical help when the Judiazers wreaked havoc in South Galatia. Barnabas never saw that aftermath, so far as we know. Paul went through each town some time after the crisis (and after his letter) and it was Paul who laid eyes on the state of the peoples whose brand new, possibly too quickly appointed elders had been impotent to prevent such catastrophe.

There is one sentence in 1st Thessalonians that some say is about elders, but it more likely refers to Silas and Timothy. If that's true, then we have no evidence Paul appointed elders in Greece during all of his second church planting journey. And why should he have done so, after Galatia? The strong suggestion of all this evidence is that Barnabas was behind the elder appointments in Galatia and Paul sought the Lord about improving the arrangement for a number of years, before appointing (recognizing) who was qualified, a few years later on.

Philippi looks like the next place Paul appointed elders, on his way to Illyricum or else right before Luke left, at the Passover of 57 AD, six and a half years into the life of that church! Paul probably handed the letter we call "1st Timothy" to Timothy in person, one week after that Passover, in Troas. And at that moment, Timothy read about a topic he'd not been exposed to for almost a decade. No wonder Paul needed to be so explicit with his instructions on how to select them.

Paul's instructions to Timothy (and later, to his old colleague Titus) demonstrate that a group of new believers needed time to get to know one another before the whole congregation could recognize who was or was not qualified to be responsible for oversight. By the way, just for the record, and in case you're wondering, I like Elders. But I prefer good ones. ;-)

To sum up: It seems Barnabas was the primary voice in the decision to appoint elders so early in Galatia. And it very much looks like Paul rejected that 'early appointment' approach for the rest of his ministry. This does not necessarily mean Paul temporarily rejected the concept or practice of elders at all. This only suggests Paul somehow determined that "old men" needed to be old in the church.

It is also possible Paul spent those years reflecting before the Lord about what christian eldership was really supposed to be like (or for that matter, gentile christian eldership).

Law and Love

I've finally sat down and read the first and last chapters of John P. Meier's 4th volume of his Marginal Jew series, entitled Law and Love, and it promises to be the first "Historical Jesus" book I could actually finish all the way through. What Meier brings to the scholarly sandbox that seems to be really new and fresh is a HJ study of a Jesus who is fully Jewish. And I love, love, love, love, love what he's doing.

Christian scholars often accept critical assumptions just long enough to attack them, or else genuflect to skepticism in order to sidestep it for theological goals. In contrast, Meier plays the game for the game's sake and draws his conclusions for the sake of the gamers. It is not about the arguments to him. It's about the subject matter and the students doing the study. If I was at all content with the state of faith-based historiography, or the state of the church, this is precisely the kind of scholarly "lifestyle evangelism" I'd be supporting today.

But here's the best part. In the process of working so hard at objectivity, Meier happens to reach one very important conclusion that 19 centuries of christian theology had apparently been unable to reach before him. Simply put, Jesus was reaally Jewish. I mean like, Jewish Jewish. He was into the Law every bit as much as the Pharisees. He just disagreed with their interpretations.

(If you ask me, that's because Pharisaic interpretations were essentially Godless. Therefore, we could make the same statement about Paul, twenty years later. Paul loved the Law. He just didn't like those who made it into something it was not supposed to be - Godless social control.)

Meier concludes that the beating heart of Jesus' Jewishness was the Torah in all it's complexity. If his study had been officially faith based, I assume it would have gone one step further and said the heart of the Torah is God Himself. At least, that's my takeaway. Jesus' Love for the Law was centered on Love for His Father.

(Again, if you ask me, the exact same is true of Paul. Paul took the heart of the Law and translated it for the Gentiles. The terms get confused because the poor gentiles were confused. But there was nothing wrong with the Law or with Jewishness.)

And now for a tangent.

My Dad's Dad was captured in the Battle of the Bulge, 1944. Thinking quickly, he took off his rosary and put it around the neck of his foxhole buddy, a Sgt. Golman, to keep him from being shot on sight. So when their captors arrived, they poked their gun barrels at his chest instead and said "Jouda?" (As a young man, Billy Heroman had black, curly hair.) To save his own life, my Paw Paw recited a line from the Latin Mass. Three years later, my father got to be born. (My grandmother raised him Episcopalian.)

I'm not entirely sure why it's taken another 65 years since that time for gentile christians to be told that we're all still minimizing the Jewishness of Jesus. I'm not sure whether anything but the Holocaust could have broken the ice on that subject. Likewise, I don't know all the reasons why Protestants have embraced such a 'Lutheran' Paul for almost 500 years. But I do know the blind spots of my forefathers are mine by inheritance. With all that in mind, I feel extremely grateful for John P. Meier and the vital conclusions of his latest book.

Jesus Christ should absolutely be found on the pages of History and any historical approach to Jesus has to deal with his thorough going Jewishness. Reading about Meier's book (in late June) gave me the courage to walk boldly towards the inevitable conclusion that Jesus in Nazareth was heavily involved in the Synagogue. Now I'm wondering if this is part of the reason why we gentiles have kept the Nazareth years unjustly "silent" for so many centuries.

Without question, a Historical Jesus must be a Jewish Jesus. Thanks to John P. Meier, I also now know what this means: "A Jewish Jesus is a halakic Jesus." I add only that the halakah of Jesus was entirely focused on His Father. The Gospels make that much very plain.

Thank you, Lord.

Leadership and Oversight

I often see people substituting "leader" for "elder" in talking about NT church offices/functions. And this is just one of many instances (when I read christianese) where I'm never quite sure what they mean. Maybe it's simply a manner of speaking, but I think it betrays a common mindset that only certain people are qualified to "lead". That may be true in the military, but I think it's very false in other walks of life.

Oversight is parenting, which often involves watching and waiting. Leadership is setting a course for action and then taking said action, which is something parents and teens ought to work out together. Oversight is coaching. Leadership is doing. The second string linebacker can demonstrate leadership on his high school team in a number of ways, but the coaches bear the brunt of responsibility for the game and the team - before, during and after each play, in and outside the locker room, on and off the field.

Leadership is something anyone can contribute during an ongoing group effort. Coaches "lead" less and less overtly as a team grows, matures and learns how to execute its proper functions together. In a coaching situation, the balance of leadership shifts back and forth between coaches and players. But oversight is the constant resolve of a tireless caretaker. His concern is not merely to accomplish a task, but to develop competent task-accomplishers on every part of the team.

I may or may not have seen it much in my day, but I believe New Testament Eldering is service oriented in a much more behind the scenes way than we usually hear about. By the way, I don't find any value in equating the terms "lead" and "serve". That's purely apologetic semantics, if you ask me.

Actual leadership is not necessarily just by example. It includes reminding others of that which we have all agreed to, sometimes (gasp) even with verbal imperative commands. It means making suggestions about specific activities we can all follow along and participate in. Leadership can be charging once more into the breach, when you just so happen to get followed. It can also be standing up to exclaim, "Let's all charge once more into the breach. What do you say?"

Oversight is a precious commodity healthy churches are blessed to have, usually given in larger supply to certain individuals who have learned how to deal with problems graciously in the spirit. Leadership is just as precious in a whole different way. Without Leadership, people sit around and do absolutely nothing. Leadership is vital to movement of the body and the spirit.

Oversight is best recognized (even better when not-often-acclaimed) as being granted to a select number of experienced folks. Leadership is that which every joint can and - for God's Own Sake - really ought to supply.

Elders most certainly can and should lead, perhaps more often in some seasons than others. When they've done their job best is when we might see them the least. But Elders are not the same thing as Leaders, and therefore we should not equate the two terms. It is not only a matter of linguistic precision. It is a matter of setting our sights on a healthier, more holistic, more scriptural benchmark for the functional development of the members of the Body of Christ.

Oh, okay. Fine. Be militaristic in your institutionalism and exclude non-elders from leading. But at the very least, don't equate these two terms when talking about Elders in the New Testament. That's anachronistic. It may be other things, too. ;-)

The Nazareth Synagogue - 3

Archaeology has not yet uncovered a Synagogue in Nazareth and may never do so, but we certainly trust that it was there during the Lord's ministry. To go farther back in time, we should also assume Nazareth had a Synagogue long before Jesus was born. Jewish custom required only ten men in order to form a Synagogue [community], even if their Synagogue [building] (or proseuche, 'prayer house') was merely a large room on the ground level of some other building.

Of course, it might have been either. But Luke 7:5 sounds as if the [at-least-partly-Centurion-financed] Synagogue building at Capernaum was that city's first-ever corporately owned, specifically allocated, communal construction. And since Capernaum was probably a hair better off than Nazareth, economically, it seems very possible that Jesus' family and neighbors actually gathered in a converted home or something similar.

(Seriously, my house church friends should NOT be getting excited about this - practical expedience was extremely common in antiquity. On the other hand, I do wonder if this being a common practice might help explain the relative dearth of early Synagogue finds in Palestine. But as far as my purpose here, I'm merely trying to be thorough.)

My only point is that we don't need Archaeology, in this case, to expect that the Jewish community of Nazareth held gatherings in some place or another during Jesus' early life. Whether they utilized part of a shared building or had somehow afforded themselves a proper meeting house, the Synagogue was the Community.

This well established fact was especially true before 70 AD, and clears the way for us to ask the next logical question. Given that there almost certainly was a Synagogue association/gathering of some sort in Nazareth, during the Lord's "silent years", to what extent did Jesus participate in it, and for that matter, what precisely did they do?

To be continued...

Series Update: The Nazareth Synagogue

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Leading, not Lording

I like Leadership. Two human beings rarely do anything together unless one of them instigates it. Unless the ice cream truck rolls past and they look at each other, and just know. Or things like that. But most of the time, some individual has to say, "Hey, guys, let's do such and such." Whether that instigation is phrased and presented in such a way to presume compliance authoritatively or to request compliance graciously, that person is bringing direction. And hallelujah!

I'm not anti-authority. I'm in favor of the whole kit and kaboodle in Ephesians 4. "Shepherds" (elders, overseers) are one of the people who were given to help train the church until it becomes able to minister to itself in every way, as a mature body. But there is an "until" in Ephesians 4. There is a point at which the role of those top-down equippers decreases somewhat. Just like John the Baptist decreased. Just like Jesus left physically. Just like a football coach giving his star quarterback more and more authority for calling the plays. But in a mature church, the whole Team can call plays.

I agree with Alan Knox that Elders can lead and that others can lead. [See my last post.] For all I know, Alan may agree with me that Leaders don't have to be Elders. [Update: he does!] But functionally, I do think it's okay for mutual leadership to include being bossy with each other, sometimes. For example - assuming the context of a healthy relationship, there are definitely times when my brother or sister may need to tell me what to do, or stop doing. Like, at the very least, "Take a shower before meetings." ;-)

Sure, gracious is better. But no matter how much you pretty it up, for style, sometimes we need to instruct and direct one another. That's just good practical common sense. Isn't it?

So I say again - the key question is not whether we give commands or suggestions. But whether those things are always given by the same person or team of people. I say again, "Lording it over" is not a question of style. It is a question of Soverignity. Or, one might even say, permanent hierarchy.

Lording it Over

I've been getting dragged into house church discussions again (when I REALLY need to be doing my research instead) but I just read a great post on ecclesiology over at Alan Knox's blog and responded tangentially in the comments. My point - the scripture does not describe pastors (or overseers or elders) as the directors of corporate activity. Then I had a brand new thought about things...

If anyone provides leadership in the body of Christ, they do a great thing, providing a wonderful service for both God and the saints. But if someone leads constantly, or exclusively, or holds permanent veto power over all decisions, then by definition I think we need to realize that such a person IS (de facto) "lording it over" the people of God. It doesn't matter one bit whether their style is gracious or domineering. If you give all the orders, or permit all the orders, then you have, in practice, assumed the position of an earthly lord.

For all practical purposes, this applies just as well to a team of leaders. If the Holy Spirit isn't allowed to direct the church into some type of corporate activity through each, any and every member of the body, then you've got overlords. But personally, I do think Ephesians 4 makes an exception for a very young church. Before she reaches corporate maturity, a gathering absolutely needs extra-strong, top-down leadership.

This may not mean 90% of established churches are unscriptural. This may only mean 90% of established churches are wired for deliberate, permanent immaturity. And for overlords.

Eden... Nazareth... Thessalonica...

Jesus Christ was God's second Adam - God's second chance to have a man live the way He'd always wanted, on Earth. Of course, the baby Jesus was not omnipotent in that manger. He had emptied himself before coming into his creation. He had to learn, grow, increase and be filled up again with G0d's righteousness.

In Him was Life. He was in very nature God. But that Life had to Grow. His divine nature developed along with his human body and soul. He grew. By the time he was "about thirty", he was grown. But before he was grown, he was growing. While growing, he was also - very significantly - living.

Nazareth was God's second Eden. Christ had to learn, as a man, how to walk with God in a spiritual way. Jesus lived by every word from the mouth of his Father. Those words were Life, so Jesus ate Life. He bore the image of God - he WAS the image of God. When he walked around living by God's spirit inside him, people were seeing what God looked like. But I'm not talking about Jesus' ministry years. I'm talking about his carpenter, good son, good neighbor and big brother years.

In Nazareth, God's Man was doing what God always wanted. He was fulfilling the law by loving his Father and everyone else. He was choosing each day to do everything only in ways that were pleasing to the Father. He wasn't only growing. He was living. He didn't only come to die. He came to live. Life. Abundantly.

Nazareth was the prototype for Joppa, Lystra, Berea, Thyatyra, and all the other first century churches. What God did with Jesus in Nazareth he wanted to do again and again with men and women who would ingest his divine nature, become one with him, partake of his spirit, and learn how to incorporate Life into life. The brothers and sisters in Thessalonica had to do what Jesus did in Nazareth. Learn. Grow. Increase. Be filled. Submit. Live by God's spirit. Have Life. Abundantly.

Eden was eventually built over with stones - Living Stones - that God himself cut, hammered, polished and built (together) into streets, gates and a wall - but no temple. His glory filled all of them. The Tree and the River were still in the center. The Root and the Flow of His Life were now, finally, surrounded by more than simply one Adam, one Cornerstone. God's New Man had multiplied, filled the earth, surrounded it, and kept out the creeping thing.

There was no progression of strategy here. It was always the same. God kept his deal with Israel, but he started a new deal when Jesus came into the world. The old deal had been a one realm arrangement. The new deal was going to be two-realms at once. Just like Eden. Sticking out of heaven. Sticking around for a while. In various places on earth.

Where I'm from, we called this "the church".

My point today? Nazareth is as significant. Nazareth needs more attention.

Biblical Studies - 4

Loren Rosson's twist on the evolving "5 Books" meme was to identify major works of scholarship you really wanted to agree with, or appreciated the importance of, but just couldn't get on board with. To some degree, that's how I feel about most of the "BS" I've encountered so far. Yes, of course I mean "Biblical Studies", you potty-brain. ;)

One example I really don't want to admit feeling this way about is the ongoing works of Paul Barnett. In the past year, I've bought five of his books: Jesus and the Logic of History, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity, and the After Jesus Series (1,2,3). I already admitted I haven't read all the pages in any of them - though I've read a lot I could never claim to have mastered his thought, so take the following comments for what they're worth. Informed impressions.

I've cheered at several sections and held my breath anticipating passages that never seem to come. Tantalizing is a pretty good way to describe it. In all five books he makes bold claims for the historicity of our Christ as we see Him in the Gospels, and spends lots of pages defending those claims and other aspects of his historiography. But his writing structure often seems to lurch back and forth between confident methodology and defensive positioning. Who is he writing for? I'm seasick and confused.

The first chapter of his latest release, Finding the Historical Christ, concludes its first chapter saying, "I am confident it is possible to find the historical Christ and that to do so calls for nothing more than patient and careful reading of the gospels as historical documents. For that, in truth, is what they are." Hooray! So let's build on that foundation! But the last chapter concludes little more. "That he was the Christ is the hypothesis that makes best sense of all the evidence, both before and after the resurrection."

Well, duh. Should I really read all 269 pages of [what seems to be mainly] arguments supporting that conclusion? Seriously, I'm sure I can learn a lot about some finer points in the debate, but it still all boils down to presuppositions, doesn't it? It still depends on what you accept as "evidence" to begin with and which non-negotiables you bring to the table. Doesn't it? That said, I'm very glad Paul Barnett is writing these books... for whomever it is that is helped by his writing of them. I mean that passionately and genuinely. But - and I hate to have to say this - I'm just not one of those who's being helped. I'll have to get over that, evidently. ;)

The last three paragraphs of 'Finding' make it clear to me that "History" is mainly Barnett's trojan horse to make the Gospels more acceptable for intelligent people. I'm okay with that. I'm just disappointed on behalf of "History". To take such a strong stand defending the historicity of the Gospels and then ultimately close in a cloud of ignorance on the details for the sake of taking an evangelistic posture designed to help unbelievers accept Christ more personally... well, that's great for evangelism, but what about the Church? Get saved and save people. Is that all we're here for?

The Gospel's harmonized Chronology and Sequence of Events deserve more attention, such as they can be reasonably reconstructed. But if we're not going to study the Gospels historically, why defend them as "historical documents"? In the end, I guess that's what sums up my frustration with Barnett. He seems only marginally interested in reconstruction, which is a real shame since the smattering of concrete discussion I've come across in his chapters contains some conclusions I think are solid and worth building on. I would be more interested in reading his long involved arguments if I could see them working towards a comprehensive account of Gospel Events. Oh, well.

No slight to Barnett, seriously, but is this really the cutting edge of faith based historical research on the Gospels?

Siiiiiiigh.