Kevin Williams continues his Messianic Foundations Series with the sixteenth chapter in a mini-series on the Gospel of Matthew. In the coming issue, Kevin will be looking at the final week of Jesus’ life on earth with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and how even then he was meeting Jewish expectations of the coming Redeemer.

When the Gospel writer John used the word anointing, did he mean something different from how other New Testament writers used the term? Robert Graves writes for the Winter 2005 issue: “The Johannine Anointing: Focusing on Truth”

The Winter 2005 issue continues the study of Biblical interpretation with Professor Craig Keener. “Using Cultural Background” continues the lesson of studying the historical backdrop in which the scriptures were written and first read. Numerous passages will be interpreted by Professor Keener in this study to give you some working examples that will help you learn better how to interpret God’s Word.

Some of the book and periodical reviews you will see:

First Nations leader Richard Twiss offers a unique perspective in a review essay of the book Whose Religion Is Christianity? The Gospel beyond the West, by Lamin Sanneh.

Skip Jenkins will be reviewing the recent article “Whither Pentecostal Scholarship? The overlap between ‘people with the Spirit’ and ‘people with Ph.D.’s.’” by Arlene M. Sánchez Walsh that appeared in Books & Culture (May/June 2004).

Graham Old writes an extended review of the anti-charismatic book The Healing Promise by Richard Mayhue.

Wolfgang Vondey reviews Gift & Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today by Craig S. Keener.

Matthew Kutz and Jason King, “We Must Pass the Baton” Charisma (June 2004), pages 84-86.

These thirty-something leaders urge the veteran generation of Christian leaders to invest in mentoring the emerging generation. After discussing some of the difficulties keeping older leaders from mentoring, they call the up-and-coming leaders to become servant protégés and to run the race together as a team. At the time of this writing, the full article was available here: http://www.charismamag.com/life/344-j15/features/biblical-discipleship/1239-we-must-pass-the-baton [updated September 30, 2014]

Ben Witherington III, “Why the ‘Lost Gospels’ Lost Out: Recent gadfly theories about church council conspiracies that manipulated the New Testament into existence are bad—really bad—history” Christianity Today (June 2004), pages 26-40.

Professor Witherington believes that recent attempts to rewrite history in novels such as The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown are driven by something quite other than historical scholarship. The evidence for historic Christian faith is significant, and the “evidence” detractors provide is not. Early Christians had a core of beliefs, and the Bible was assembled much earlier than these conspiracy theorists allow. At the time of writing, the article was available here: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html. See also “Why the ‘lost gospels’ were lost” by Craig Keener in Christian History & Biography 82 (Spring 2004), page 15.

Image: Taragui / Wikimedia Commons

Irving Hexham and Charles Nienkirchen, “Exploring the Land of the Apostles: Because Turkey is the backdrop for so much of the New Testament, traveling there opens a world of biblical understanding” Charisma (May 2004), pages 86-87, 89-91.

When you think Bible lands, you should think Turkey. Christian historians and pilgrimage guides Irving Hexham and Charles Nienkirchen remind us that over 60% of all New Testament sites, and many locations from the Hebrew Scriptures, are to be found in ancient Asia Minor—the modern secular nation of Turkey. At the time of this writing, the full article was available here: http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/339-j15/features/christian-pilgrimages/1209-exploring-the-land-of-the-apostles [updated September 30, 2014]

Charles Edward White, “Holiness Fire-Starter” Christian History & Biography 82 (Spring 2004), pages 16-17, 19-21.

The subtitle of this article summarizes it well, “Transformed by her child’s fiery death, Phoebe Palmer lit the flames of revival on two continents.” The entire Spring 2004 issue, entitled “Phoebe Palmer and the Holiness Revival,” should be significant for any Pentecostal/charismatic interested in their heritage and the pursuit of holiness.

Christian History has changed its name to acknowledge that most of its articles concentrate on telling the stories of those Christians God has used in special ways to shape the world and be His witnesses.

With comments by Pauline Parham, daughter-in-law of Charles Parham, who passed away at the age of 94 on December 22, 2003

He has been called a “rabid racist” and a “white supremacist.” He has been vilified as the progenitor of racial prejudice in the Pentecostal movement. Some believe that any traces of racism among modern Pentecostals can be traced to him. In a recent reconciliation gathering, repentance was offered and forgiveness asked for his sin of racism.¹ In the minds of many, Charles Parham is an embarrassment to the Pentecostal movement and does not deserve recognition as one of its founders.

On the other hand, it was Parham who first reached across racial lines to both African-Americans and Mexican-Americans and included them in the fledgling Pentecostal movement. It was Parham, a native of Kansas, who offended southern whites by preaching in black churches and allowing a black pastor to enroll in his Bible school in segregated Houston, TX. It was Parham who did the “unheard of” and invited a black woman, Rev. Lucy Farrow, to preach in his Apostolic Faith campmeeting in south Texas in 1906. And it was Parham who, until his death in 1929, maintained cordial relations with the black community in his hometown of Baxter Springs, KS, often preaching in the local black Pentecostal church.

So, how are we to reconcile these conflicting views of Parham and his racial stance. Is there more than one Charles Parham? The problem seems to be context, or lack of it. Historical events occur within a context and the historian must not ignore the context. When Parham’s life is evaluated within the social-legal-religious context of his time, what emerges is neither a saintly crusader for racial equality nor a rabid racist. What does emerge is an individual who, in many ways, reflected the times in which he lived—when racial apartheid was generally accepted and practiced throughout the land. But what also emerges is an individual who, at critical times, was willing to break with cultural mores and reach across racial lines when it was not the popular thing to do. It is for this reason that Charles Parham deserves credit for setting the tone for the inter-racial openness and harmony that prevailed for a time in early Pentecostalism.

The Historical Context

Parham (1873-1929) lived and ministered during a time when racial segregation was accepted and practiced throughout America. The 14th amendment to the constitution had included a “Separate but Equal” clause, recognizing segregation but requiring that all citizens be treated equal under the law. In the 1896 case, “Plessy vs. Ferguson,” the United States Supreme Court upheld the “separate” part of this clause when it ruled that a law in Louisiana requiring blacks and whites to ride in separate railroad cars did not violate the constitution.

It was obvious, however, that the “separate” part of the clause was upheld far more vigorously than the “equal” part. Public facilities for blacks were inferior and fewer in number than those for whites. Blacks were commonly required to sit on the back seats in trains and buses and to eat in dilapidated, back rooms in restaurants. The best hotels were for whites only and even professional sports was for whites only.

And the Church? In the 1960s Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared 11 a.m. on Sunday morning to be the most segregated time in America. It was even more so fifty years earlier. A black person in a white church or a white person in black church was considered strange and even inappropriate. Most professing white Christians believed the white race to be superior and that racial segregation could be defended with Scripture.

Forgiveness. Fidelity. Laying on of hands. Kevin Williams puts these and other teachings of Jesus in their context, pulling back the veil of history and culture that is now far removed from us.

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive men? Up to seven times?” (Matthew 18:21).

So begins the thorny issue of forgiveness. There are many views and many practices regarding forgiveness today. What we shall attempt to do here is to examine the issue from a biblical perspective and prayerfully, enrich our own understanding.

Peter’s question about forgiving someone up to seven times may have seemed quite magnanimous from his own perspective. The practice of the day was to forgive someone up to three times:

For they pardon a man once, that sins against another; secondly, they pardon him; thirdly, they pardon him; fourthly, they do not pardon him”¹

Our hero Peter likely feels he has gone above and beyond the call of duty by offering to forgive someone seven times! This contrasts Genesis 4:15 very well. Cain had killed his brother Abel and had been judged by God. Now he worried that others would try and kill him. But God decreed, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken upon him sevenfold.” By Peter’s era, it was common to take a negative in the Bible and give it a positive application. In other words, if vengeance should be sevenfold, then in contrast forgiveness ought to be sevenfold. Peter was likely quite proud of his conclusion.

But Yeshua (Jesus²) sees things differently. Just as Genesis 4:24 goes beyond sevenfold, “If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold,” Yeshua goes even beyond Peter’s simple seven.

Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22).

For many disciples, this statement by Yeshua, left to stand on its own, seems to present a cart blanche obligation for Bible believers to forgive those who sin without requiring any repentance on the sinner’s behalf. There are many respected teachers who say that forgiveness is an obligation placed upon believers, a mark of their status as citizens of the kingdom of God, and the only healthy means to exist in a fallen world.

As reasonable as this might sound, it is not exactly the example the Bible lays out for us. If it were, who would ever need to come to faith in the Messiah? When men and women come to faith, there is recognition of their sin, recognition of the penalty of that sin, and a conscious decision to repent and ask forgiveness. It is at this point that God is moved with compassion and mercy is poured out. This is how the fullness of genuine forgiveness is exercised.

This was similarly true in the period of the tabernacle and temple. Individuals came to make their sin and guilt offerings, specific sacrifices intended to heal the rift sin had created between them and God. God did not need the fat of the lamb or the blood of the goats—God needs nothing. The sacrifices were (supposed to be) an active act on the part of the sinner to recognize their sin, its penalty, and to make a conscious decision to repent and ask forgiveness. This was not limited to three, seven, or seventy-times seven times. This divine freedom was available to the sinner every moment, of every day, of every year.

So the established and God-given biblical pattern was repent first and then be forgiven: a pattern repeated in the New Testament as both John the Baptist and Yeshua preach, “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.”

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Fall 2004.

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

Bible Background (Part 1 of 2)

In any communication, some matters are stated but others can be left assumed. For instance, I am writing in English, on the assumption that I and my readers both know English; if Paul wrote to the Corinthians in Greek, he could assume that they knew Greek. I assume that my readers know what a Bible is, and would be safe to assume that my readers know what a car is, what a radio is, and what pounded yam is (though Paul’s readers knew none of these things, except what the Old Testament part of the Bible was). Paul could likewise allude to specific customs his readers practiced without explaining them, because the Corinthians already knew exactly what he meant (e.g., “baptism for the dead,” 1 Cor 15:29). But for us to understand Paul’s meaning we must either know Greek or have a translation, and we must either know the culture the biblical writers shared with their audiences or have access to resources that help explain that culture. What the writer could assume as part of his meaning was as much a part of the meaning as what he had to state.

We have noted previously the importance of whole-book context, because most books of the Bible stress particular themes addressing particular issues. We should not skip from one book of the Bible to another (except where one book specifically refers back to an earlier and widely circulated one), at least not until we have figured out each passage in its own context first. But one reason particular books emphasize particular themes is that they addressed particular situations. Although people sometimes ignore such verses, many verses explicitly state particular audiences for these books—for instance, the Christians in Rome (Rom 1:7) or in Corinth (1 Cor 1:2). There are appropriate ways to apply these books to today, but first we must take seriously what these works explicitly claim to be: works addressed to specific audiences in specific times and places. In other words, before we can determine how to apply the ancient meaning today, we must understand the ancient meaning. To skip this important step in Bible interpretation is to ignore what the Bible claims for itself.

Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life (New York, NY: Free Press, 2002), 295 pages, ISBN 9780743247856.

On Easter Sunday, 1886, Sigmund Freud began private practice in the area of neuropathology in Vienna, the first step in the creation by Freud and his followers of what could be called “the Psychological Century.” Through his considerable self-promotion skills, writings, and lecture tours, Freud established himself as the leading thinker and theorist in the field of psychology; all others wrote and theorized either within his thought or against it. 65 years after his death in 1939, Freud’s theories and teachings still define both the field and image of psychology.

Some 45 years later after Easter 1886, a young English tutor at Magdalen College in Oxford, England, named Clive Lewis, set out in the side car of his brothers motorcycle to visit Whipsnade Zoo. He was as yet unknown and unpublished, apart from one volume of poetry, and still little more than a theist with serious doubts about the claims of Christ. But somewhere along the route to the Zoo, without having seriously thought about the subject, Lewis crossed the line to put full faith and trust in Jesus Christ. He would go on to write thousands of letters, articles, and books and give dozens of lectures until his death in 1963, becoming in the process the most articulate and convincing apologist for Biblical Christianity in the 20^th century—a fact that would have driven Freud to distraction.

Entrance to the Whipsnade Zoo.
Image: Lumos3 / Wikimedia Commons

Both Freud and Lewis had shared the same doubts and arguments against the claims of Jesus Christ, and religion in general, finding both to be irrational and imprisoning to the soul and the intellect of human beings. Both had been comfortably convinced that the path to the happy life and rational existence lay through the uncompromising rejection of foolish religious belief. One died still convinced, the other died converted. Why? And what does their personal story tell us about the general consequences of belief and unbelief, particularly in Jesus Christ?

That is the story that Nicholi tells in his book, presenting a fascinating dual conversation between men who never met, culled from letters, writings and family anecdotes, and pulled together in a compelling way by a master teacher from Harvard. In the US, PBS will be airing a series based on the book this coming October (2004).

Nicholi is well equipped to take us on this journey; a practicing psychiatrist, teacher at Harvard’s Medical School and editor of the Harvard Guide to Psychology, he also spent time personally visiting and talking with Freud’s daughter Anna, and other friends of the great psychologist. The book and the coming PBS series grew out of a seminar on Freud that Nicholi has taught at Harvard’s undergraduate school since 1972, and it is clear that Nicholi has refined the subject matter considerably over the years. The great achievement of the book is that Nicholi has managed to sympathetically present the views of both Freud and Lewis without demeaning either one; such an accomplishment should serve as a model for all apologists for the kingdom of God. Because Nicholi does not interject his own views into the discussion, the reader is left to choose which person’s worldview really did produce a life worth living, and a legacy worth dying for. As Nicholi put it, “Their arguments can never prove or disprove the existence of God. Their lives, however, offer sharp commentary on the truth, believability, and utility of their views” (p.5). It is the lives lived as a result of either the spiritual or the scientific worldview which Nicholi focuses on in the course of the book. “Whether we realize it or not,” Nicholi writes in the prologue, “all of us possess a worldview…we view the universe as a result of random events and life on this planet a matter of chance; or we assume an Intelligence beyond the universe who gives the universe order, and life meaning…Our worldview tells more about us perhaps than any other aspect of our personal history” (p.7). How did the worldview of each man affect how they lived their lives, and what does it tell us about each one?

Brian C. Stiller, Jesus and Caesar: Christians in the Public Square (Oakville, Ontario: Castle Quay Books, 2003), 187 pages, ISBN 9781897213193.

All too often the church vacillates between secularization and sectarianism, between a diminished belief in God in the world and the withdrawal of the church from culture to protect the faithful. Brian Stiller wants to rehabilitate the role of public engagement, Jesus and Caesar argues that Christians need to steer a middle course between secularization and sectarianism if the church is to be a spiritual light to the world.

After investigating the reasons for the decline of Christian witness in the world, Stiller explores the biblical approach to public engagement. In the Old Testament, creation established the principles of shared resources, work, growth and accountability. Since the Fall, however, greed and envy led to the abuse of creation and use of economic resources for personal gain. In the New Testament, Jesus was a political force, a witness to people regardless of political or social location. Although he did not participate in political rule or contest government rulership, Jesus effected social change. He upset the status quo by challenging its “self serving assumptions and values” (p. 62). He inaugurated the kingdom reign by cutting to the center of human self-interest, power and ego. Yet hope for the ultimate fulfillment of the kingdom still lay in the future, pushing the Christian community forward to celebrate life in the midst of turmoil. Christ’s kingdom message sowed the seeds for life-giving transformation. For Stiller, the Christian must embrace the earth (and cosmos) as part of God’s grandeur reality, not to be annihilated but to be transformed into the new heaven and new earth. Thus the state has legitimate status in the order of creation and kingdom expectation, so that Christians have an obligation to influence the state for the gospel.

Brian C. Stiller

Four models of church-state engagement are suggested by Stiller. The “Christendom model,” developed under Constantine, combined the church’s message with the state’s concern for exercising power. However, the church’s lack of distance created an inability to critique society. The “Luther model” challenged papal authority and its link to social power to emphasize personal faith. Luther’s two kingdom doctrine severed the spheres of church and state: The former was concerned with spiritual growth, the latter with the restraint and punishment of evildoers. Ironically, Luther ended up calling on the state to fight against the “tyranny of Rome,” Anabaptism and the peasant’s revolt. The “Calvin model” asserted that the state receives its authority directly from God (not the church), but this authority is limited. The church is called to renew creation and exert influence on the whole social order as the gospel makes its way into the world to oppose ungodliness. The “Otherworldly model” argues for Christian separation from the world; the church is the locale of the redeemed, the world under demonic rule. In this model, obedience to the state is conditional and subsequent to obedience to God. For Stiller, the church is called to serve Christ whereas the state is to serve all peoples, faiths and cultures.

N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 741 pages, ISBN 9780800626822.

Dr. Wright approaches his study of Jesus as a Christian, a New Testament scholar, and as an historian. While his conclusions challenge many popular evangelical conceptions of Jesus, his teachings, and his mission, they also provide what I discovered to be a significantly more integrated picture of Jesus—one that “made sense” in the light of sound biblical, cultural and historical contexts, and brought new insight upon the church’s own mission and message.

Wright begins with a thorough examination of the recent “quests for the historical Jesus,” chronicling (and critiquing) scholars from Hermann Samuel Reimarus and Albert Schweitzer to Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and others. Wright then offers a new direction for the “quest” that brings together both serious historical research and coherent theological reflection.

It is impossible to compress Wright’s comprehensive examination of the evidence into one simple statement. His is a well reasoned hypothesis offering a coherent conclusion that is consistent with the data, and helpful in understanding the implications of the data for the believing community.

Wright locates Jesus fully in his first-century Jewish context, and shows the reader how his message, his miracles, his public actions, and parables would have been heard in that context. Illuminating the first century Jewish expectation about the return of Israel’s god, in its various forms, Wright identifies Jesus as a prophet who is not only critiquing their practices, approaches, and expectations, but is suggesting, radically, that their expectation for the coming kingdom of God is taking place in and through himself.

The climax of Israel’s story, and indeed humanity’s story, was taking place in the life of Jesus. Because of this, or rather as an expression of this, Jesus message and actions challenged many of Israel’s traditional identity markers, such as Temple, Torah, land, and ethnic/national identity. Jesus was redrawing theses around himself. Israel was in exile, but her God was acting then and there to deliver her—and this was taking place through Jesus. As Wright comments in a section on the Last Supper, “the meal brought Jesus’ own kingdom-movement to its climax. It indicated that the new exodus, and all that it meant, was happening in and through Jesus himself” (p.557).

Wright closes this work with an examination of the crucifixion of Jesus. He explores not only the reasons for Jesus’ crucifixion (a subject of much controversy in recent months), but also a radically fresh suggestion about what Jesus believed his crucifixion meant. Jesus’ death was not simply God’s messy way of “paying” for the sins of human beings, but the means by which Israel’s God was going to conquer her enemies. Wright says in conclusion, “Unlike his actions in the Temple and the upper room, the cross was a symbol not of praxis but of passivity, not of action but of passion. It was to become the symbol of victory, but not the victory of Caesar, nor of those who would oppose Caesar with Caesar’s methods. It was to become the symbol, because it would be the means, of the victory of God” (p.610).

Brian D. McLaren, “Emerging Values: The next generation is redefining spiritual formation, community, and mission” Leadership (Summer 2003), pages 34-39.

What are the values of the thirty-somethings entering ministry today?

Brian McLaren says that there is a lot to be hopeful about in the emerging Christian leaders who grew up in a postmodern culture. “The way we traditionally expressed Christianity may be in trouble, but the future may hold new expressions of Christian faith every bit as effective, faithful, meaningful, and world-transforming as those we’ve known so far” (page 35).

McLaren’s hopefulness regarding a postmodern expression of Christianity may be a significant reason why some consider him controversial, however this article has little if anything to concern readers. Rather, this is an appealing invitation to get to know people in the emergent church movement by introducing the values they embrace.

McLaren sees three rivers of thought and emphasis shaping the ministry of the next generation of spiritual leaders. The emerging emphasis on spiritual formation understands Christianity as a way of life, not as a perfect belief system. “Instead of ‘If you were to die tonight, do you know for certain that you would spend eternity with God in heaven?’ the new question seems to be, ‘If you live for another thirty years, what kind of person will you become?’” (page 38). Longing for authentic community, emerging leaders believe the church is about relationships not numbers in attendance or conversions. “Throwing a small-groups program at this hunger for community is like feeding an elephant Cheerios, one by one. What’s needed is a profound reorganization of our way of life, not a squeeze-another-hour-for-‘community’ into the week” (page 38). Leaders take less dominant roles where they serve as team leaders on a shared journey. Finally, the missional emphasis is an invitation to join in the journey. Instead of a rhetoric of exclusion if certain preconditions or statements of belief are not adhered to, “missional Christianity says, ‘God is expressing his love to all outsiders through our acts of kindness and service. You’re invited to leave your life of accumulation and competition and self-centeredness to join us in this mission of love, blessing, and peace. Want to join in the mission?’” (page 39).

If you want to learn about what emerging leaders are emphasizing and is influencing them, I do highly recommend this article. At the time of this writing, the entire article was available here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2003/003/3.34.html

Reviewed by Raul Mock

C. Peter Wagner, Humility (Regal Books, 2002), 130 pages.

Peter Wagner has written a short and easy-to-read book on the subject of humility. The book has eight short chapters, each of which is followed by a series of questions and some blanks for the reader to express her thoughts to herself. This format would be useful as a personal devotional or in a group study setting.

Peter starts his book by noting that he could find little written on this subject and the scripture that says “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” Mat 23:12 (NIV). Indeed Peter ended up with a very short bibliography which essentially consists of just one book written by Andrew Murray more than 100 years ago.

Peter takes a look at his subject from a variety of perspectives. Then he proceeds to discuss the subject in his eight chapters by covering the value of humility, its two dimensions, the definition of humility, and your need to choose the course you will take. He outlines five signposts on the way to pride and ten signposts on the way to humility. He concludes with a discussion on the stable foundation humility provides, even when we face adversity. He closes by encouraging us to live as scripture urges: be humble before God.

C. Peter Wagner

Peter believes that we are all challenged daily to be humble. I found his thoughts provoking and worth looking at, particularly since he uses himself as the person who may or may not have victory in the area under discussion. My daily efforts at being humble are far less difficult than those that face Peter since no one has heard of me nor do I have any position or reputation to defend. Indeed I am constantly interfacing with people and situations that keep my feet on the ground, and my head and heart guarded. It is hard to hold you head high when by doing so it becomes a better target.

Nonetheless I would like the Lord to exalt me and at the same time to increase my spiritual effectiveness and my income. I imagine that desire applies to most of you reading this review.

Peter’s 61^st book is easy to read, it will challenge you to examine yourself and to examine Peter Wagner and his idea of his humility, which I found fascinating. I will not comment on what I think of Peter’s success or lack thereof at being humble beyond noting that he is exalted far beyond most of us.

Reviewed by H. Murray Hohns

Preview Humility: http://books.google.com/books/about/Humility.html?id=TLM_R0wvHFIC