B-2 PEOPLE FILES
- Greg Beale - Katelyn Beaty - David Bebbington - David Beckmann - Michael Behe- Peter J Belini - John Benefiel -
greg Beale
Greg Beale
Peter Enns begins his new blog series with his own story about what caused his view of the Bible to change. One of the “culminating ‘aha’ moments” came from his study of 1 Cor 10:4: “for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.”
Paul is clearly referring back to the times when God refreshed the Israelites with water from a rock during their desert wanderings (Exodus 17, Numbers 20). However, Enns argues that Paul is doing more than just referring to the Old Testament accounts. Paul describes the rock as something which “accompanied them”—a clear reference, according to Enns, to ancient Jewish tradition that the rock in the desert actually travelled along with the Israelites.
Since the Jewish tradition about a travelling rock is clearly a legend—a legend that Paul apparently took to be fact—then we have a real problem, says Enns, for the evangelical view of biblical authority. He puts it bluntly, “no rock moved in the Old Testament, but Paul said one did.”
Of course, I have already responded to Enns’ argument in prior works (e.g., see my Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism, chapters 4 and 5). But, I shall try to summarize some of those earlier points here, but the fuller discussion should be consulted, which also interacts with Enns’s responses to my critiques.
The problem with Enns’ argument is twofold: (a) there are doubts about whether this Jewish “tradition” of a moveable rock was present in the first century; and (b) even if the tradition was present, there are doubts about whether Paul was alluding to it.
As to the first problem, there is only one Jewish reference to this “tradition” that plausibly is dated around the first century A.D., but even part of this reference is clouded by textual uncertainty. The lone Jewish source is Pseudo-Philo, which is dated by the majority of scholars as early as the first century A.D., though there is some debate even about that. The main text in Pseudo-Philo is 11:15: “and the water of Marah became sweet. And it [the well or the water] followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plains.” However, while some very good manuscripts (the ∆- group of mss. [A, K, P]) have “it followed,” the majority of manuscripts (the π – group of mss. [H, R, W, X, Y, Z, S, Ad, D, E, V, M, B, C, O, G]), which are also manuscripts of very good, indeed almost equal, authority with the ∆- group of manuscripts, have “the Lord [Dominus] followed.”
If “Lord” is the correct reading, then the identification of the “following well” in Pseudo-Philo 10:7 (as well as, presumably, in 20:8) would apparently be the Lord himself. Put another way, if “Lord” is original, then the “following well” in 10:7 and the “water” in the preceding clause of 11:15 could well be viewed as metaphorical for the “Lord” in 11:15, which would take the legendary punch out of the evidence.
The point is that this is not a minor textual problem, despite one’s final conclusions about it, and to base a major conclusion in 1 Cor. 10:4 on this Pseudo-Philo text is precarious. This leaves only Tosephta Sukka 3.11 (date ca. 300 A.D.) and Targum Onquelos Numbers 21:16-20 (date ca. 250-300 A.D.). These are the only really solid textual witnesses to the kind of Jewish legend that Enns says Paul was dependent on; however, because of their late date, it is difficult to say that the legendary tradition was even extant in the first century.
As for the second problem, even if this Jewish “tradition” was extant in the first century there are serious doubts about whether 1 Cor 10:4 demonstrates Paul’s adoption of it. He may well be doing a biblical – theological exegesis of Exodus 14-17 in the light of Psalm 78:14-20 (e,g., “he splits the rocks . . . and gave them abundant drink . . . he struck the rock so that waters gushed out”) and 78:35 (“God was their rock”), the latter of which appears to identify God with the “rock” of Ps. 78:15-16, 20.
Note also some of the differences between Paul’s reference and that of later Judaism: (1) he identifies the rock as the Messiah, (2) he does not use the language of a “well” and (3) he refers to the “rock” from which they drank as a “spiritual rock” from which “spiritual drink” was obtained (1 Cor. 10:4), not a literal rock, significant differences with the later Jewish legend, which appears to see a literal traveling well that “followed” Israel. Incidentally, note also that the idea of God in association with a “rock” that “followed” Israel in the wilderness is not unique to the later Jewish midrashic literature but occurs also in Exod. 14:19 in relation to Exod. 17:5-7, where in the latter passage the presence of the rock from which drinking water came may also implicitly suggest that God is a rock or at least is directly linked to the phrase “the Lord is among us” in response to the people’s doubt about this.
In this respect, note the “following” concept in Exod. 14:19: “and the angel of God who had been walking before the camp of Israel, moved and walked behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them.” And the presence of God continues to move between the Egyptians and the Israelites as the latter go through the sea. Note similarly that Isa. 52:12 and 58:8 allude to Exod. 14:19 and prophesy that in the new, second Exodus God would also be Israel’s “rear guard.” Thus, in light of the fact that Exod. 17:6 very closely associates God with the “rock” (as does Psalm 78), it does not take much ingenuity to see how Paul could posit that Christ was a “following rock” in his pre-incarnate divine existence as the “angel of the Lord.” Paul may be doing intratextual and intertextual exegesis, which is a form of biblical theology. Thus, Enns’s attempt to say that the “following” aspect is unique to the Jewish well legend is not correct, since both linguistically and conceptually the notion occurs in the Old Testament itself.
In sum, we can conclude that Enns’ primary conclusions about 1 Cor 10:4 simply remain unproven. It is not certain that this Jewish tradition was even extant in the first century, nor is it certain (if it was extant) that Paul was alluding to it or adopting it.
--Greg Beale; Cannon Fodder: Does the Bible Ever Get it Wrong? Facing Scripture’s Difficult Passages (#1): 8.25.14
Paul is clearly referring back to the times when God refreshed the Israelites with water from a rock during their desert wanderings (Exodus 17, Numbers 20). However, Enns argues that Paul is doing more than just referring to the Old Testament accounts. Paul describes the rock as something which “accompanied them”—a clear reference, according to Enns, to ancient Jewish tradition that the rock in the desert actually travelled along with the Israelites.
Since the Jewish tradition about a travelling rock is clearly a legend—a legend that Paul apparently took to be fact—then we have a real problem, says Enns, for the evangelical view of biblical authority. He puts it bluntly, “no rock moved in the Old Testament, but Paul said one did.”
Of course, I have already responded to Enns’ argument in prior works (e.g., see my Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism, chapters 4 and 5). But, I shall try to summarize some of those earlier points here, but the fuller discussion should be consulted, which also interacts with Enns’s responses to my critiques.
The problem with Enns’ argument is twofold: (a) there are doubts about whether this Jewish “tradition” of a moveable rock was present in the first century; and (b) even if the tradition was present, there are doubts about whether Paul was alluding to it.
As to the first problem, there is only one Jewish reference to this “tradition” that plausibly is dated around the first century A.D., but even part of this reference is clouded by textual uncertainty. The lone Jewish source is Pseudo-Philo, which is dated by the majority of scholars as early as the first century A.D., though there is some debate even about that. The main text in Pseudo-Philo is 11:15: “and the water of Marah became sweet. And it [the well or the water] followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plains.” However, while some very good manuscripts (the ∆- group of mss. [A, K, P]) have “it followed,” the majority of manuscripts (the π – group of mss. [H, R, W, X, Y, Z, S, Ad, D, E, V, M, B, C, O, G]), which are also manuscripts of very good, indeed almost equal, authority with the ∆- group of manuscripts, have “the Lord [Dominus] followed.”
If “Lord” is the correct reading, then the identification of the “following well” in Pseudo-Philo 10:7 (as well as, presumably, in 20:8) would apparently be the Lord himself. Put another way, if “Lord” is original, then the “following well” in 10:7 and the “water” in the preceding clause of 11:15 could well be viewed as metaphorical for the “Lord” in 11:15, which would take the legendary punch out of the evidence.
The point is that this is not a minor textual problem, despite one’s final conclusions about it, and to base a major conclusion in 1 Cor. 10:4 on this Pseudo-Philo text is precarious. This leaves only Tosephta Sukka 3.11 (date ca. 300 A.D.) and Targum Onquelos Numbers 21:16-20 (date ca. 250-300 A.D.). These are the only really solid textual witnesses to the kind of Jewish legend that Enns says Paul was dependent on; however, because of their late date, it is difficult to say that the legendary tradition was even extant in the first century.
As for the second problem, even if this Jewish “tradition” was extant in the first century there are serious doubts about whether 1 Cor 10:4 demonstrates Paul’s adoption of it. He may well be doing a biblical – theological exegesis of Exodus 14-17 in the light of Psalm 78:14-20 (e,g., “he splits the rocks . . . and gave them abundant drink . . . he struck the rock so that waters gushed out”) and 78:35 (“God was their rock”), the latter of which appears to identify God with the “rock” of Ps. 78:15-16, 20.
Note also some of the differences between Paul’s reference and that of later Judaism: (1) he identifies the rock as the Messiah, (2) he does not use the language of a “well” and (3) he refers to the “rock” from which they drank as a “spiritual rock” from which “spiritual drink” was obtained (1 Cor. 10:4), not a literal rock, significant differences with the later Jewish legend, which appears to see a literal traveling well that “followed” Israel. Incidentally, note also that the idea of God in association with a “rock” that “followed” Israel in the wilderness is not unique to the later Jewish midrashic literature but occurs also in Exod. 14:19 in relation to Exod. 17:5-7, where in the latter passage the presence of the rock from which drinking water came may also implicitly suggest that God is a rock or at least is directly linked to the phrase “the Lord is among us” in response to the people’s doubt about this.
In this respect, note the “following” concept in Exod. 14:19: “and the angel of God who had been walking before the camp of Israel, moved and walked behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them.” And the presence of God continues to move between the Egyptians and the Israelites as the latter go through the sea. Note similarly that Isa. 52:12 and 58:8 allude to Exod. 14:19 and prophesy that in the new, second Exodus God would also be Israel’s “rear guard.” Thus, in light of the fact that Exod. 17:6 very closely associates God with the “rock” (as does Psalm 78), it does not take much ingenuity to see how Paul could posit that Christ was a “following rock” in his pre-incarnate divine existence as the “angel of the Lord.” Paul may be doing intratextual and intertextual exegesis, which is a form of biblical theology. Thus, Enns’s attempt to say that the “following” aspect is unique to the Jewish well legend is not correct, since both linguistically and conceptually the notion occurs in the Old Testament itself.
In sum, we can conclude that Enns’ primary conclusions about 1 Cor 10:4 simply remain unproven. It is not certain that this Jewish tradition was even extant in the first century, nor is it certain (if it was extant) that Paul was alluding to it or adopting it.
--Greg Beale; Cannon Fodder: Does the Bible Ever Get it Wrong? Facing Scripture’s Difficult Passages (#1): 8.25.14
katelyn beaty
Katelyn Beaty is a writer, journalist, editor, and keen observer of trends in the American church. She has written for the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, Religion News Service, Religion & Politics, and the Atlantic and has commented on faith and culture for CNN, ABC, NPR, the Associated Press, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. She also cohosts the Saved by the City podcast (Religion News Service). Beaty previously served as print managing editor at Christianity Today and is the author of A Woman's Place: A Christian Vision for Your Calling in the Office, the Home, and the World.
|
April 12, 2023: Katelyn Beaty: The Roys Report: Opinion: It’s Unloving to Quickly Restore Fallen Pastors
|
|
david bebbingtom
David William Bebbington (born 25 July 1949) is a British historian who is a professor of history at the University of Stirling in Scotland and a distinguished visiting professor of history at Baylor University. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Royal Historical Society. Bebbington was born in Nottingham, England, on 25 July 1949 and was raised in Sherwood, a northern suburb of Nottingham. An undergraduate at Jesus College, Cambridge (1968–1971), Bebbington began his doctoral studies there (1971–1973) before becoming a research fellow of Fitzwilliam College (1973–1976). Since 1976 he has taught at the University of Stirling, where since 1999 he has been Professor of History. He was President of the Ecclesiastical History Society (2006–2007).
The Evangelical Imagination: How Stories, Images, and Metaphors Created a Culture in Crisis
American evangelicals have long been proficient at introspective assessments of our own movement. Since the mid-1980s, sociologists like James Davison Hunter have diagnosed evangelicalism’s contemporary virtues and pathologies, while thinkers like Mark Noll and David Bebbington have sought to interpret the movement through a historical lens. Such diagnoses have often taken on an urgent tone that, rather than undermining the movement, has been one of the keys to its endurance and vitality. In 1967, Carl Henry wrote Evangelicals at the Brink of Crisis, warning that evangelicals were in danger of being culturally marginalized. In 1976, he penned a similarly anxious missive, Evangelicals in Search of an Identity. If evangelicalism is anything at all, it is probably a movement preoccupied with such a search and with the social alienation that demands it.
(Matthew Lee Anderson/Public Discourse 11/13/23)
Read More>>>>>
American evangelicals have long been proficient at introspective assessments of our own movement. Since the mid-1980s, sociologists like James Davison Hunter have diagnosed evangelicalism’s contemporary virtues and pathologies, while thinkers like Mark Noll and David Bebbington have sought to interpret the movement through a historical lens. Such diagnoses have often taken on an urgent tone that, rather than undermining the movement, has been one of the keys to its endurance and vitality. In 1967, Carl Henry wrote Evangelicals at the Brink of Crisis, warning that evangelicals were in danger of being culturally marginalized. In 1976, he penned a similarly anxious missive, Evangelicals in Search of an Identity. If evangelicalism is anything at all, it is probably a movement preoccupied with such a search and with the social alienation that demands it.
(Matthew Lee Anderson/Public Discourse 11/13/23)
Read More>>>>>
david beckman
David Beckmann is coordinator of the Circle of Protection, an advocacy coalition of church bodies and ministries that include 100 million people. He is both an economist and a pastor.
We need to hear from the presidential candidates about poverty
(RNS) — In the run-up to Election Day in 2020, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden delivered a major address on strategies to reduce U.S. poverty. To his credit, that strategy was later reflected in his Build Back Better program, much of it passed in the first year of the Biden administration. Its pandemic relief and recovery measures, some of them approved on a bipartisan basis, provided needed assistance, kept unemployment low and reduced poverty in America to its lowest level in history. A diverse coalition of church leaders called the Circle of Protection, working with the Poor People’s Campaign, helped convince Biden to give that big speech about poverty. Starting with outreach to the Obama and Romney campaigns in 2012, the group had been working for years to get presidential candidates to explain how they would provide more opportunity to people struggling with poverty and hunger. Our simple ask has been for the candidates from the two major parties to make videos explaining their policies on poverty. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, nearly all candidates in both parties made videos. Donald Trump submitted a written statement in 2016.
(David Beckmann/ Religion News 11/24/23)
Read More>>>>>
(RNS) — In the run-up to Election Day in 2020, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden delivered a major address on strategies to reduce U.S. poverty. To his credit, that strategy was later reflected in his Build Back Better program, much of it passed in the first year of the Biden administration. Its pandemic relief and recovery measures, some of them approved on a bipartisan basis, provided needed assistance, kept unemployment low and reduced poverty in America to its lowest level in history. A diverse coalition of church leaders called the Circle of Protection, working with the Poor People’s Campaign, helped convince Biden to give that big speech about poverty. Starting with outreach to the Obama and Romney campaigns in 2012, the group had been working for years to get presidential candidates to explain how they would provide more opportunity to people struggling with poverty and hunger. Our simple ask has been for the candidates from the two major parties to make videos explaining their policies on poverty. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, nearly all candidates in both parties made videos. Donald Trump submitted a written statement in 2016.
(David Beckmann/ Religion News 11/24/23)
Read More>>>>>
michael behe
Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which argues that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature. Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design
Apr 25, 2023: Evolution News: Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, John Lennox: The Evidence for Design Is Growing
On a new episode of ID the Future, Uncommon Knowledge’s Peter Robinson sits down with Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Stephen Meyer, three of the leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of life and the universe. In this wide-ranging conversation in Fiesole, Italy, they explore the growing problems with modern evolutionary theory and the increasing evidence, uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method, that points to intentional design of the physical world.
On a new episode of ID the Future, Uncommon Knowledge’s Peter Robinson sits down with Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Stephen Meyer, three of the leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of life and the universe. In this wide-ranging conversation in Fiesole, Italy, they explore the growing problems with modern evolutionary theory and the increasing evidence, uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method, that points to intentional design of the physical world.
Aug 30, 2021: Evolution News: How Engineers Helped Save Biology from Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionist Jerry Coyne emphasized in his hatchet-job review of Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves how life should display similar bottom-up design:
Dec 19, 2014: Rational Skepticism: Behe declares victory on all fronts
In a talk in South Korea, Michael Behe has admitted doing a "victory dance" in his office based on new evidence that he claims supports his ID contentions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlvYn0WrHaY
Evolutionist Jerry Coyne emphasized in his hatchet-job review of Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves how life should display similar bottom-up design:
Dec 19, 2014: Rational Skepticism: Behe declares victory on all fronts
In a talk in South Korea, Michael Behe has admitted doing a "victory dance" in his office based on new evidence that he claims supports his ID contentions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlvYn0WrHaY
Sept 10, 2008: Evolution News: Rebuttals at OpposingViews.com: Will Intelligent Design's Legal Critics (Americans United) Retract Their Demonstrably False Claims?
Michael Behe and I have posted our first couple objections to the opening statements posted by critics of intelligent design (ID) on OpposingViews.com.
Michael Behe and I have posted our first couple objections to the opening statements posted by critics of intelligent design (ID) on OpposingViews.com.
Peter j Bellini
Peter J. Bellini received his B.A. in English from the Ohio State University, the M.Div. from Asbury Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Intercultural Studies from Asbury Theological Seminary with a specialization in Urban North America. Bellini is a mission theologian and serves as Senior Pastor of Westville United Methodist Church and Adjunct Professor of Urban Studies at United Theological Seminary in Ohio. He is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church and has served in urban ministry for 21 years. Dr. Bellini has been a leader in every facet of ministry, including new church starts, church turnarounds, mergers, local church renewal, discipleship and leadership training, inner city and global missions and several marketplace ministries.
Peter J Bellini
Christ becomes the beginning and end of our identity and our salvation. The Athanasian idiom claims that “God became human that we may become like God.” The Incarnation is the grounds and goal of our sanctification, theosis. Humanity is made in the image of the Logos, and the Logos became human in Christ Jesus. The God-man defines the image of God and reforms the shape of that image in us. The image of God in Christ is revealed to us through him that we may become like him. The Incarnation, the image of God in Christ, is understood relationally. It is a hypostatic union between God and humanity, divinity and humanity in a person. The Incarnation defines who Christ is and why he came to save us. The Incarnation defines our image in creation and redemption, our genesis and our end. In creation, God identified with us by making us in his image. In salvation, Christ identified with us, so that we can identify with him. We begin to learn and practice his righteousness. For the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
“Whose image and inscription are engraved on that coin?”
“Caesar’s!”
“Well, give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s! And whose image and inscription are engraved on your soul?”
“God’s!”
“Well, give unto God what is God’s!” -Peter J Bellini; Firebrand Magazine; Giving Unto Caesar: Thoughts on Power and the Church in a Day of Politicization 9.5.23
“Whose image and inscription are engraved on that coin?”
“Caesar’s!”
“Well, give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s! And whose image and inscription are engraved on your soul?”
“God’s!”
“Well, give unto God what is God’s!” -Peter J Bellini; Firebrand Magazine; Giving Unto Caesar: Thoughts on Power and the Church in a Day of Politicization 9.5.23
"Revival often is dealing with the larger mystery and providence of God. We should all take a holy pause and breathe in before we claim to be able to judge the work of God. In one regard, we are all amateurs." --Peter Bellini
john benefiel
Dr. John Benefiel is the founder and Senior Pastor of Church on the Rock, Oklahoma City. He also founded and leads the Heartland Apostolic Prayer Network (HAPN) and the Global Apostolic Prayer Network (GAPN), with a leader and a network in each of the 50 states and 112 nations. The purpose of the networks is to impact the seven mountains of culture - Religion, Family, Education, Government, Media / Arts & Entertainment, Protect & Serve, and Economy - for God's Kingdom through our prayers and influence.
Pennsylvania’s Prayer Warrior: Abby Abildness And Her Dominionist Crusade In The Commonwealth
Apostle Abby Abildness is on a quest to claim the Keystone state for God. She’s a Pennsylvania-based leader in a worldwide network of neo-charismatic Christian leaders called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), which promotes dominionism, the belief that Christians have a mandate from God to control all aspects of government and culture. NAR leaders advance a supposedly divine strategy for achieving dominion called the “Seven Mountains Mandate,” which divides society into seven categories, or “mountains”, and encourages Christians to pick a mountain and then head into their community to conquer it for God. In The Commonwealth We initially reported on the NAR in August last year. As stated in that report, some of the NAR’s most prominent leaders include: Cindy Jacobs , John Benefiel, Lance Wallnau, Abby Abildness, Dutch Sheets, Chuck Pierce, Ché Ahn, Lou Engle, Jim Garlow, Steve Strang (Charisma News), Steve Shultz (Elijah List).
(Heather Hahn/United Methodist Church 11/7/23)
READ MORE>>>>>
Apostle Abby Abildness is on a quest to claim the Keystone state for God. She’s a Pennsylvania-based leader in a worldwide network of neo-charismatic Christian leaders called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), which promotes dominionism, the belief that Christians have a mandate from God to control all aspects of government and culture. NAR leaders advance a supposedly divine strategy for achieving dominion called the “Seven Mountains Mandate,” which divides society into seven categories, or “mountains”, and encourages Christians to pick a mountain and then head into their community to conquer it for God. In The Commonwealth We initially reported on the NAR in August last year. As stated in that report, some of the NAR’s most prominent leaders include: Cindy Jacobs , John Benefiel, Lance Wallnau, Abby Abildness, Dutch Sheets, Chuck Pierce, Ché Ahn, Lou Engle, Jim Garlow, Steve Strang (Charisma News), Steve Shultz (Elijah List).
(Heather Hahn/United Methodist Church 11/7/23)
READ MORE>>>>>
page
