I had two emails from friends recently, within a few minutes of each other, recommending books to read. The first pointed me to an online edition of Fragments from Reimarus: consisting of brief critical remarks on the object of Jesus and His disciples as seen in the New Testament. The English translation was published in 1879, more than a hundred years after the death of the German philosopher. The original Wolfenbüttel Fragmente arguably prised open the Pandora’s box of critical research into the life of Jesus. My friend thought I might be interested in some comments Reimarus made on the second coming of Jesus, and we’ll come to that in a moment.

Here’s another response to a comment that has outgrown itself and become an ad hoc summary piece. Peter Wilkinson points to Romans 3-4 as evidence that the gospel for both Jews and Gentiles was that Jesus died for their sins:

The argument is addressed to Jews and Gentiles v.9, v.19b. The righteousness through the faithfulness of Christ is “to all who believe. There is no difference, for all….are justified….through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus….a sacrifice of atonement….the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus….Is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also?”

I maintain, however, that Paul’s gospel is that God has appointed Jesus as Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead, and that this is to be interpreted in “political” terms on the basis of Psalm 2:7-8….

Todd asks a question in respect of an old post on the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-8).

Is the restoration of Israel, then, during a future Millennium? If so, how do Gentiles fit into this, and where is the Church during this time? Is the kingdom of Israel different than the Church, the heavenly Zion? Will Hagar, Jerusalem below, and her children, have their own kingdom, or will they return to Sarah and submit to her?

To bring it all up-to-date, here’s a brief summary of my understanding of the future of Israel as seen from the perspective of Jesus and Paul, with a few links to the relevant posts.

If we think that the New Testament always presupposes the pre-existent, divine identity of Jesus as the eternal Son of God, we have to understand Paul’s statement in Romans 1:4 that Jesus “was declared (horisthentos) to be the Son of God in power” (ESV) to mean that, while Jesus was always the Son of God, the fact that he was Son of God in power was not announced until after the resurrection. There are two problems with this theological interpretation of the passage—on top of the fact that it could have been stated more simply.

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Rev. 5:6)

Is this a good example of what might be described as latent or incipient Trinitarianism in the New Testament—a vivid heavenly tableau in which God the Father and the Son are worshipped in the presence of the Spirit which speaks to the churches? Trinity Sunday is coming up, and we would do well to think about such things. In a spirit of orthodox generosity I would say, “Yes, but….”

It appears that Catholics in Italy, France and Spain are getting revised translations of the Lord’s Prayer. The problem is the line “Lead us not into temptation”. The Pope complained in 2017 that this is a bad translation, not on exegetical grounds but on theological grounds:

It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation. I am the one who falls. It’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen. A father doesn’t do that; a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation—that’s his department.

This monograph addresses the question, “How does Revelation interact with the Roman Empire?” As the subtitle suggests, it contributes especially to empire studies, which have typically offered the response that Revelation is anti-Rome or anti-imperial. However, Shane J. Wood argues that, although Revelation draws on the “sovereign narrative” of the Roman Empire, it does so to construct an “alter-empire.” By “alter-empire,” Wood seems to have in mind (although this is never stated explicitly) an empire centered upon Christ and his death, constructed over against an enemy far greater than Rome: the Dragon, Satan.

This is the opening paragraph of a recent review of a book which I haven’t read. The book is The Alter-Imperial Paradigm: Empire Studies and the Book of Revelation, by Shane J. Wood (Leiden: Brill, 2016). The review is by Joshua J. Coutts and is published in the SBL Review of Biblical Literature. You have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing.