Should We Always Interpret Scripture Literally?

One way to answer that question would be to ask, did Jesus and the apostles always interpret Scripture literally. To find the answer, let's look at an Old Testament prophecy, the New Testament interpretation of it, and Dr. Robert Stein's comments on it.

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” (Malachi 4:5-6) 

"And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean. And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” [To which Matthew adds, "Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist." Matt. 17:13]

(Mark 9:9-13 ESV; see also Luke 1:13-18)

“It is evident that Jesus and the New Testament writers often interpreted Old Testament prophecy in a nonliteralistic way. They undersrtood the prophets as using metaphorical and impressionistic language to proclaim their prophetic message. They used the tools of a poet rather than the tools of a photographer to convey their divine message. They understood the ‘literal meaning’ of the prophets as involving what the prophets meant to convey by their words, not what a literalistic interpretation of the words (used figuratively by the biblical author) means. Thus Malachi 4:5 refers to one who would fulfill the role of the prophet Elijah, that is, John the Baptist (see Mark 1:4-6). The dress of John the Baptist indicates that he also saw himself as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6.”
--Robert Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary

The Frightening Prospect of Reaching Your Full Potential

This is a comment that Dr. Robert Stein made in class yesterday.

"A lot of TV preachers talk about how people should reach their full potential. But the last thing I want to do is reach my full potential. My parents immigrated from Germany in the 1920's. Had they stayed there, my full potential might have been as a guard at Auschwitz." 

Stein on the Triumphal Entry

Chapter 13- "The Triumphal Entry: Israel's King Enters Jerusalem."

"For Jesus the triumphal entry was a carefully orchestrated messianic act. It was a parabolic act that could be perceived by those with eyes to see but that was concealed for others. His messianic entry was shrouded in the same kind of secrecy that characterized his parabolic teaching on the kingdom of God and his use of the title 'Son of Man.' In conscious fulfillment of the messianic prophecy found in Zechariah 9:9, he arranged for an unridden donkey to be ready for him. Having fetched it, he rode into Jerusalem. He did not walk into the city as other pilgrims did; he rode. Yet he mounted no warrior stallion, for he was meek and humble. He rode into Jerusalem not to mount a kingly throne, but to fulfill his Father's mission. In majesty he rode on--to die!

The crowds knew little, if any, of this. The festive occasion and the coming of a famous celebrity worked together to inspire an enthusiastic pilgrim's welcome...The greeting of this pilgrim psalm was more fitting than realized, however. He who 'comes in the name of the Lord' was indeed coming to 'save' (hosanna). Yet here, as at Caesarea Philippi, the confession or greeting was not understood. Jesus was greeted as 'the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee' (Matthew. 21:11), not as Messiah and King. The people's understanding and messianic hopes were radically different; they could not understand this event. No doubt this lay within the divine will. The consequences of an open messianic welcome for Jesus would have brought about an immediate confrontation with Rome. Rome could not tolerate any Messiah or King of Israel. 

At the trial, when witnesses were sought to condemn Jesus and justify Roman political action, no mention was made of the triumphal entry. Clearly in the minds of Rome and the Jewish leadership this event was not understood as a messianic claim or challenge...

 The triumphal entry was a real event that Jesus had consciously arranged and carried out in fulfillment of his divine mission. Within a short time the enthusiasm greeting Jesus on this day would turn to a more hostile 'Crucify him!' (Mark 15:13-14). Yet this was his day. It was fitting to receive this enthusiastic welcome. In fact, if the crowds and disciples had not so responded, if they had remained silent, 'the stones would [have] shout[ed] out' (Luke 19:40).'"

--Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

 

 

Stein on the Transfiguration

Chapter 12- "The Transfiguration: A Glimpse of the Future"

Just for context, let me give you Mark's account of the Transfiguration.

And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. ² And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, ³ and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. ⁴ And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. ⁵ And Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” ⁶ For he did not know what to say, for they were terrified. ⁷ And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” ⁸ And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only. (Mark 9:1-8)

Here then are some of Stein's thoughts:

"The transfiguration account is attached to the events of Caesarea Philippi by one of the few chronological connections found in the Gospels. According to mark 9:2 and Matthew 17:1, the transfiguration  took place 'six days later' than the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. In Luke 9:28 the chronological tie is 'about eight days after.' (Luke may be reckoning the time period inclusively whereas Mark and Matthew though exclusively.) Apart from the events between Palm Sunday and Easter, we find no other temporal designation this specific."

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

"The transfiguration is intimately tied to the events of Caesarea Philippi. This is true not only temporally, but also theologically. What had occurred at Caesarea Philippi was affirmed, and its implications were further spelled out. What Peter had confessed was now verified by the divine Voice. Jesus was not Elijah, Moses, a prophet, or John the Baptist. The Voice affirmed what Peter had said. Jesus was the Messiah/Christ., the beloved Son of God. This implied that he had no equals. People could not treat him on the same terms as Moses and Elijah--he was much greater.    

What this meant concerning his mission had to be learned from Jesus himself. Peter earlier had sought to impose his own messianic conceptions on Jesus. The result was a Satanic understanding of the messianic role. At the transfiguration, the Voice told Peter and the others that they must 'listen to Jesus.' He alone was the one who could and must interpret the messianic role God had intended. And this role led to Jerusalem and a cross."

--Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

 

Stein on the Events of Caesarea Philippi

Chapter 11: "The Events of Caesarea Philippi: The Turning Point"

The events Stein is describing here are recorded in Mark 8, Matthew 16, and Luke 9. They took place in the Gentile city of Caesarea Philippi, and include chiefly Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah, and Jesus' beginning to teach them about his crucifixion and resurrection.

"The events of Caesarea Philippi were clearly the watershed and turning point of Jesus' ministry. It is at this point that the disciples came to acknowledge, despite their own misconceptions, that Jesus was indeed the Christ. Upon receiving this confession, Jesus began to prepare the disciples for his forthcoming passion."

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

"The necessity of preparing the disciples for the future passion was understandable. One need only observe the response of Peter to this teaching to see why. Despite the verbal correctness of his earlier confession that Jesus was the Christ, Peter's understanding of what this confession implied was seriously flawed. In his thinking, as in the thinking of most of his contemporaries, there was no place for the suffering, rejection, and death of which Jesus spoke. Jesus had altered in part the disciples' nationalistic preconceptions about the person and work of the Messiah, but there was no room for a messianic passion in their understanding. Consequently Peter began to criticize and even rebuke Jesus for teaching this. No wonder Jesus had commanded his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. If the disciples were still confused and harbored misconceptions concerning the work of the Messiah, how much more confused must the crowds have been."

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

"In the past one could usually tell if a commentator in the gospel of Matthew was a Roman Catholic or Protestant simply by how he or she interpreted this passage of Scripture. If the rock was interpreted as referring to Peter, the commentator was Roman Catholic. If the rock was interpreted as alluding to Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, he or she was a Protestant. It is unfortunate when the interpretation of a text is predetermined from the start by one's religious affiliation. One's religious background predisposes how one interprets a text such as this. Such awareness should serve as a first step in trying to be more objective....

The easiest way of understanding this pun [between Peter's name, which means "a stone," and the word "rock" upon which the church is built] is to assume that Jesus is referring to Peter as a 'rock' due to the future role he would play in the church. Peter is the one who would serve as the early leader of the church; it would be through him that the gospel would be proclaimed in Jerusalem, Judea (Acts 2:1-4:31), and Samaria (Acts 8:14-25), and it would be through Peter that the first Gentiles would hear the gospel and believe (Acts 10:1-11:18). There is a real sense, therefore, that  it would be through the ministry of Peter, the leader of the apostles, that the church would be established and grow...Protestants and Orthodox can join with Roman Catholics in joy over the gift of this man to the church. However, there is no hint anywhere in this text or in the rest of the New Testament that this leadership role was passed on in perpetuity to a successor of any sort."   

--Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

 

 

 

Stein on the Person of Jesus

Chapter 10- "The Person of Jesus: 'Who Then is This That Even the Wind and the Sea Obey Him?"

"At times Jesus performed certain actions that were the exclusive prerogative of God. When Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic, the scribes protested: 'Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?' (Mark 2:7). Similarly, when he forgave a woman of her sins, some of those present responded: 'Who is this that even forgives sins?' (Luke 7:49). Attempts have made to interpret these actions ('your sins are forgiven') as examples of 'divine passives'--a reverent way of avoiding the name of God by using the passive. The words of Jesus, according to this view, should be interpreted 'God has forgiven you of your sins,' rather than 'I personally have forgiven you of your sins.' It is evident that neither Mark nor Luke understood these sayings in this manner.

Nor did Jesus' audience understand his words in this way, for they were greatly upset. They all believed that Jesus was exercising a prerogative belonging to God alone. The accounts furthermore do not give the slightest hint that Jesus sought to explain to his opponents that they misunderstood his action. There is no hint of Jesus saying, 'You have misunderstood me. I was simply using the 'divine passive' and stating that God had forgiven him/her.' The gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus as consciously exercising a divine prerogative and personally forgiving sins."

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

"Unlike John the Baptist, the ministry of Jesus was typified by miracles. Thirty-four separate miracles are performed by Jesus in the Gospel accounts...One cannot read the Gospel accounts without the question arising, 'Who is this man who is master of nature, disease, and even death?' In Jesus' actions people saw a bold claim to a unique authority. Even as the prince dressed a pauper unconsciously revealed who he was by his behavior, so Jesus, despite his modest dress and occupation, revealed his understanding of who he was by his actions." 

 

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

Stein on the Message of Jesus Part 2

"To understand Jesus' ethical teachings, we must recognize that his teachings on ethical behavior are intimately connected to the coming of the kingdom of God. Since the God of the kingdom is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and the prophets, we should expect continuity with the ethical teachings God gave to his people in the Old Testament. Those teachings stem from the moral character of God himself. As a result, ethical holiness in the new covenant corresponds with the ethical holiness in the old. Yet with the coming of the kingdom the attainment of that holiness has been enhanced because of the 'already.' With the coming of the kingdom of God, the 'childhood' of the old covenant gives way to the maturity of 'adulthood' in the new. Thus certain teachings concerning clean/unclean give way to the freedom (and responsibility) found in the new covenant (Gal. 4:1-7). Whereas this was alluded to in germ form by Jesus (Mark 7:12-23), it would become clearer to the church after the resurrection (Rom. 14:1-23; Acts 10-11).

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

"The ministry of Jesus was marked by the announcement that something new was taking place. The day awaited and longed for had arrived. The promises of the Old Testament were being fulfilled. The kingdom of God had come. This new day brought with it such joy and excitement that fasting was inappropriate. It was rather a time for celebration (Mark 2:18-19).

A new covenant was inaugurated. Yet this new covenant was not a repudiation of the past covenant, but its fulfillment. It involved not a new religion or movement but the fuller realization of the covenant God made long before with the people of Israel. Unlike Marcion and some later church leaders, Jesus did not see the coming of the kingdom of the kingdom as a repudiation of the covenant God made with Israel. Nor, as some would later argue, did he understand the new covenant as identical with the earlier one. The fact that he called it 'new' (1 Cor. 11:25) reveals this.

The coming of the kingdom brought with it a certain sameness, for the God of the new covenant was the same as the God of the old covenant. The same God was worshiped in both, although a new intimacy was apparent in the use of the title Abba. The same ethic that stems from the character of the unchangeable God is found in both, although the deeper intention of that ethic and a new empowering is now present. Paradoxically the ethic Jesus taught was both the same and different, old and new!"

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Messiah-Survey-Life-Christ/dp/0830818847/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321563803&sr=1-1

 

 

 

Stein on the Message of Jesus

Jesus the Messiah--Chapter 9: "The Message of Jesus: The Kingdom of God has Come to You"

"During the first eighteen centuries of the church, parables were interpreted as allegories in which the individual details of the parable were to be searched for meaning. Today they are more correctly recognized as extended metaphors which tend to teach a basic point. At times, however, the details of the parable may bear allegorical significance (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; 22:2-10; Mark 12:1-12). The key for detecting valid allegorical details is to ask whether Jesus' original audience would have interpreted these details in such a manner. Asking this question makes it evident that the ring and the fatted calf in the parable of the prodigal son could not be references the Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper, although the vineyard mentioned in Mark 12:1-12 would have been interpreted as a reference to Israel (Isa. 5:1-2)."

"In these passages [Luke 11:20, 16:16, 17:20-21; Mark 2:21-22] Jesus claimed that kingdom of God had in some way arrived. It was not just near but already here. It was realized...On the other hand, there are passages  in which Jesus taught that the kingdom of God involved some future event, something that had not yet occurred [Luke 11:2, 13:22-30; Matt. 5:19-20, 7:21-23, 8:11-12, 25:31-46; Mar 14:25; and so on]. In these passages Jesus taught that the kingdom of God was in some way still future--it was 'not yet.' In some instances the kingdom of God is even a synonym for eternal life (Mark 10:17, 23; John 3:3-5, 15-16]...According to Jesus, the kingdom/reign of God has now come in the a unique way in his ministry. Already the promised Spirit was at work, and after the resurrection he would baptize all of Jesus' followers, beginning at Pentecost. Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled. A new covenant was inaugurated (Mark 14:24); the resurrection of the dead was about to begin (1 Cor. 15:20-23). Yet the final consummation of all things still lay in the future...Maintaining a balance between the 'already' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God is critical. When the tension between them is lost and one aspect is emphasized at the expense of the other, two major errors arise. To lose sight of the 'not yet' leads to a triumphal enthusiasm that is ultimately doomed to disappointment and disillusionment. The fallen character of the this world and our sinful nature will see to that. On the other hand, to lose sight of the 'already' leads to a defeatism and a defensive mentality that thwarts the spreading of the gospel throughout the world. Kept in proper perspective, Jesus' teaching leads to an optimistic and aggressive evangelism as well as an awareness that in this life we are still 'strangers and foreigners on the earth' (Heb. 11:13)."

Stein on Christ's Calling of the Disciples

Chapter 8, Robert Stein's Jesus the Messiah. "The Call of the Disciples: You Shall Be My Witnesses"

I have already quoted one except from this chapter concerning why Jesus chose twelve apostles. See  "Why Twelve Apostles" from October 28.

"One reason Jesus chose twelve disciples has already been discussed. It involves the symbolism of the number. With his ministry, the long-awaited kingdom of God had come. The 'consolation' (Luke 2:25) and 'redemption' (Luke 2:38) of Israel were now taking place. To symbolize the gathering of the ten (literally--nine and a half) lost tribes and the reunion of Israel, Jesus chose twelve disciples.Their number and presence during his ministry was a visual proclamation that the kingdom of God had indeed come."

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

 "Among the disciples were a traitor (the tax collector Matthew) and a Zealot revolutionary (Simon). The fact that they could coexist side by side for an extensive period reveals how Jesus can change the hearts of natural enemies and bring reconciliation and peace. Truly, Jesus demonstrated that through the lives of his disciples that he could break down the walls of hostility."

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

"Apart from Jesus' death and resurrection, probably no other event in his life possessed a greater significance and had more lasting consequences than his choosing of the Twelve. The act itself reveals that Jesus saw in his ministry the fulfillment of Old Testament promises. Because the kingdom had now arrived and God was visiting his people, the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. As we will see in the next chapter, Jesus' message involved a realized dimension. Already, not just in the near future, the end of the ages had come. For Jesus 'in that day' had moved from the distant future to the present. His choosing of the twelve disciples illustrates that... 

Much discussion has focused on how Jesus taught his disciples. Did he teach them according to how the Talmud claims that rabbis taught their disciples, using at times rote memory? Such a procedure conflicts radically with the free-spirited individualism of the present day. It has been argued that JEsus' disciples, unlike the rabbinic disciples, were not followers of traditions and ideas but of a person. Yet this would certainly not make them less committed to the teachings of that person. If anything, it would make them even more committed to them. Within the ministry of Jesus we even find a situation in which those teachings were proclaimed by the disciples. It is hard to imagine that when Jesus sent out the twelve disciples to preach (Mark 6:7) he told them to say whatever they felt or whatever came into their minds. What kind of disciple would have preferred his own preaching and formulation of the divine message over that of the divine messenger himself? The proclamation of Jesus' message during this mission would have helped fix these teachings forever in their memory.

After the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the disciples would provide leadership for the early church and be guarantors of the gospel traditions. For this they had been both called and trained. They were called to preach (Mark 3:14) and to oversee as 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word' the passing on of the Jesus tradition (Luke 1:2). There is a very real sense, therefore, that even today the church is built on the founding work of the twelve disciples. That is true not just in the historical sense that the Christian church today is descended from the church they founded. It is also true that the Gospels that the church today that the church possess are the result of the preservation and transmission of the gospel traditions by 'those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word' (Luke 1:2). Two of our Gospels are associated in the tradition of the church with the Twelve (Matthew and John). The Gospel of Mark is associated in all the early church traditions with the Apostle Peter. Luke claims that his gospel is result of his having investigated both the written works of other writers and the oral accounts stemming from the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves (Luke 1:1-3). Thus the church today, if it remains true to the Gospel teachings, still rests on 'the foundation of the apostles' (Eph. 2:20)."

--Robert Stein 

 

 

 

Stein on the Wilderness Temptation of Jesus

"This temptation [to be given the world's kingdom in exchange for worshipping Satan] boils down to an offer to win the world without the 'cup' God had called him to drink (Mark 10:38). It involves a political solution to the world's problems. If the basic need(s) of the world could be solved by political action, this was the way Jesus should go. With the kingdoms of the world given him he could rid the world of hunger, war, injustice, poverty, and so on. A 'crossless' solution would solve such problems, and it would do so with no need of great suffering on his part. On the other hand, if the basic need of the world involved forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and salvation from future judgment, then such a 'victory' by Jesus would be a shallow one. 'For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?' (Mark 8:36). Jesus saw his mission as saving his people from their sins (Mt. 1:21), saving the lost (Mark 10:45), and leading his followers into Paradise (Luke. 23:43), and he had to follow the path God had ordained for him at his baptism (Mk. 10:38-39)."

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah

Stein on the Baptism of Jesus

Chapter 6 of Robert Stein's Jesus the Messiah, moving through Jesus' life chronologically, deals with his baptism  in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. It is subtitled "The Anointing of the Anointed."

"With the coming of John the Baptist the voice of prophecy was once again heard in Israel [for the first time in 400 years]. The spiritual drought of the past four centuries had come to an end. God was again visiting his people. Yet John's message was not an end in itself. Integral to (and the highlight of) his message was the announcement of the Coming One. A person greater than the greatest of the Old Testament prophets (Matt. 11:9-11), was present in John the Baptist, but a far greater one was at hand. John labored to prepare the people for this person, and it was a privilege to baptize him. Whereas John later had questions concerning Jesus' messianic status (Matt. 11:2-6), Jesus' reply was apparently satisfactory. At least the evangelists want us to understand the incident that way.

At his baptism Jesus began his ministry as the Anointed One, the Christ or Messiah. "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations" (Isa. 42:1). Even as prophets (1 Kings 19:16), priests (Exo. 29:7, 21), and kings (1 Sam. 10:1) were anointed for their tasks, so the Prophet-Priest-King also was anointed for his ministry. The issue of how Jesus would fulfill his divine role and the kind of Messiah he would be now faced him. This would be resolved in the wilderness."

Stein on the Silent Years of Jesus

Chapter 5 of Stein's Jesus the Messiah is entitled "What was the Boy Jesus Really Like? The Silent Years." The chapter covers the first 30 years of Jesus life under various topics.

In regard to the claim that Jesus was married:

Sensational claims have been made that Jesus was married. Some have even written tabloid-like works claiming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or Salome. The strongest argument made for the view that Jesus was married is that it was normal for Jewish men to marry and that it was expected that teachers would marry and be an example in this area. In discussing whether or not Jesus was married we must be careful to recognize that a decision on this subject should not be based on whether or not one believes that celibacy is more noble than marriage.

That there is no reference in the NT to a wife of Jesus and that there is nothing whatsoever in the NT that Jesus was married argues strongly (if not conclusively) against such a view...The argument that Jesus would have been unusual if he did not marry also confronts the objection that Jesus was in fact most unusual. The concern for his mother (John 19:27) but lack of any concern for an alleged wife also raises powerful objections. There is in reality no evidence whatever that Jesus was married."

In regard to Jesus' education, Stein remarks:

"It would appear, then, that Jews lived in a trilingual environment. Thus, although Jesus' native language was Aramaic, he could probably also converse in Hebrew and Greek."

"Being the oldest son, Jesus was most likely of the children to have received a formal education. Yet John quotes Jesus' opponents with approval: 'How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?' (John 7:15). That Jesus could read is evident from Luke 4:16-21, where he read the Scriptures at Sabbath worship in Nazareth. The later noncanonical passage found in John 7:43-8:11 suggests that he could write (John 8:6), but one most judge this scribal addition most critically. That Jesus was a learned man goes without saying. He engaged in debates with the intellectual leaders (Mk. 2:23-28; 3:1-6; 7:1-23; etc.), was called 'Rabbi' and 'Teacher,' and most important, he taught in the synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:21; etc.). So whereas we do not know how Jesus received his training and education, the fact remains that his ability to read, to debate the Scriptures, and to answer exegetical questions reveals that he was an educated  man." 

 

 

Stein on the Virgin Conception

Chapter 4 of Stein's book Jesus the Messiah is titled "Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Born of the Virgin Mary: How it All got Started." It deals with the conception and birth of Jesus. He here lays out the importance of the virgin conception of Jesus--what it means and what it doesn't mean.

"Some have argued that the virginal conception was necessary to keep the Son of God from inheriting the corruption of the sin of Adam...Yet the person who thinks this way must somehow protect the Son of God from inheriting such sin and corruption via Mary. It is not surprising therefore that the logical consequence of this kind of thinking was to argue for the immaculate conception of Mary. Now the Son of God could truly be protected from such sin, since he could not have inherited sin from his mother. The New Testament does not enter into such speculations. Luke simply says that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and overshadowed her through all this. Through his protection, the offspring would be holy, the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

The incarnation, not the virginal conception, is the essence of the Christmas story. For orthodox Christianity that is self-evident. The Son of God did not come into existence through a virginal conception. The Son of God was, is, and always will be. Long before the virginal conception, the birth of Mary, the entire genealogy of Luke 3:23-38 and the creation of the world, the Son was. The virginal conception was simply  the means by which God brought about the incarnation of his Son.

Nevertheless, the Bible does say that the incarnation was brought about by a virginal conception. If that was God's way of bringing this about, we can do nothing but acknowledge it. The importance of confessing or denying the virginal conception lied not in its christological consequences. The virginal conception and birth did not make Jesus the Son of God. It was not required to keep him holy and undefiled. What is at stake involves not a doctrine of Christ but of Scripture. The virgin birth served for the authors of The Fundamentals as a kind of litmus test concerning one's view of the Bible. To deny it was obviously to reject the Bible as an infallible rule of faith. In this respect the question 'Do you believe the virgin birth?' served as a kind of 20th century shibboleth (Judg. 12:6) testing a person's view of the Bible." 

Robert Stein 

 

Stein on Miracles

I have posted a couple of excerpts in the past few weeks from Robert Stein's book Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. I find the book so profitable that I plan begin posting at least one excerpt from every chapter. Maybe one per day. But just so that this doesn't become a Robert Stein blog, I will mix in other things along the way.

Chapter 1 is entitled ""Where You Start Determines Where You Finish: The Role of Presuppositions in Studying the Life of Jesus." His main point is that no Bible reader or scholar come to the Gospels with a blank slate. We all have presuppositions. In this excerpt, he points out that liberal scholars are not as unbiased as they sometimes like to let on.

In light of the importance of presuppositions about the supernatural on the outcome of one's work, authors should make clear from the start the position they take on this matter. It is misleading to say that 'due to their investigation of the accounts' authors conclude that Jesus was not born of a virgin, that the miracles are later myths created by the church, that the faith of the early church gave rise to the accounts of the resurrection and not the other way around, and so on. All these conclusions were predetermined before any investigation began. It should come as no surprise that when one starts with the view that miracles cannot happen, the conclusion is that the miracles investigated did not happen.

Robert H. Stein,  Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Messiah-Survey-Life-Christ/dp/0830818847/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320782363&sr=1-1

Why Twelve Apostles?

"Jesus called twelve men to be his disciples. The symbolical nature of their number was not accidental. Jesus' audience could not have helped but notice the number. "Twelve" conjured up in the mind of any Jew the twelve tribes of Israel. At the time of Jesus the common conception was that only two and a half tribes remained--the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and half the tribe of Levi. The other nine and a half tribes were lost in 722 B.C. when Samaria fell, and those tribes were scattered in exile among the Gentiles. The time would come, however, when God would visit his people and restore the twelves tribes of Israel. In that day, the day of Israel's salvation, the lost tribes would be reunited and God would establish his kingdom upon the earth (compare Isaiah 11:10-16; 49:6; 56:8, Micah 2:12; Sirach 48:10, and so on).

Jesus' calling of the twelve disciples was a symbolic act that demonstrated visually what he proclaimed verbally: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near' (Mark 1:15). God was visiting the people of Israel. The restoration of the twelve tribes was taking place. For Jesus, however, this restoration did not involve a political revival of the nation of Israel. It involved, rather, the experience of the divine presence and the arrival of the kingdom of God in a unique way among his people."

Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ

Jesus is Totalitarian

If you want a book surveying the life of Christ for late high schoolers and up, look no further than Robert Stein's Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. Stein taught New Testament and Hermeneutics at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (he was the mentor of that Rob Plummer fellow I quoted last week). This work chronicles the life of Christ as presented in the Gospels, explaining the historical and cultural background and summarizing Jesus' teachings. It would also be good college prep reading, since Stein introduces you to (and refutes) liberal and unbelieving views of Jesus and the Gospels. Though technical at times, this book  is still quite accessible, and is a good historical resource for any Christian to have. (Look for more excerpts from it in the future.)

"The 'totalitarian' nature of Jesus' demand for allegiance must not be lost sight of or compromised. To require greater loyalty than that due to father or mother, wife or children (Luke 14:26) is to demand the kind of allegiance that only God can make. In light of all this, one cannot avoid the questions "Who is this who thinks that the world revolves around himself? A deranged egomaniac? A false prophet? Or can it be that this is indeed the King of kings and Lord of lords?"

Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ


http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Messiah-Survey-Life-Christ/dp/0830818847/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319765434&sr=1-3