Note on the Korban Rule in Matthew 15/Mark 7

The word “Let it be Korban whereby I am profitable to thee” is a form of solemn prohibition found, word for word as in the Gospel, in the Talmud. The meaning is, not that such alienated goods or services were really dedicated as an “offering,” but that they were to be regarded as if they had been dedicated.

The passage has been illumined from the Jewish side by J. Levy, who cites the relevant parallels from the Babylonian Talmud, Nedar I.4, ii.2, and iii.2. In the last passage there is a close parallel to Mk. Vii.11:

If anyone sees several persons eating fits that belong to him and says, “They are Korban with regard to you” (i.e., they are forbidden you), but afterwards discovers that as well as strangers his father and brothers are among them, then, according to the School of Shammai, his relatives are not bound by the Korban, but may partake of the figs; the strangers are bound by it. According to the School of Hillel, on the other hand, the relatives also are bound, even though the Korban has been pronounced with regard to them in error. And if anyone expressly lays such a Korban on his relatives, then they are bound by it and cannot receive anything from him that is covered by the Korban.

Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (2d ed.: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954), 101. Emphasis in original

How apologists for inerrancy operate

In his book, Evangelical Answers (1997), Reformed Protestant apologist, Eric Svendsen, wrote:

It is abundantly clear by reading the Catholic apologists that they will not accept any evidence that overturns papal infallibility. No matter how badly a Pope has erred - morally, doctrinally, or otherwise - no charge against papal infallibility will ever stick. It would save us a lot of time if Catholic apologists will simply admit this. In reality, this is nothing short of historical gymnastics and wishful reconstructions at best - and blatant dishonesty at worst. (Evangelical Answers [Atlanta, Georgia: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1997], p. 34)

Having read the works of Patrick Madrid, Karl Keating, and others who have defended instances of papal error, I would happen to agree 100% with him. However, this quote can also be reworked to present another truth, that of the "historical gymnastics and wishful [thinking]" of those who hold to biblical inerrancy:

It is abundantly clear by reading the Evangelical Protestant apologists that they will not accept any evidence that overturns biblical inerrancy No matter how badly a text has erred - historically, chronological or otherwise - no charge against biblical inerrancy will ever stick. It would save us a lot of time if Evangelical apologists will simply admit this. In reality, this is nothing short of historical gymnastics and wishful reconstructions at best - and blatant dishonesty at worst.

Current Scholarly Understanding of the term "Monotheism"

I intentionally used the term “monotheism” with the full realisation of its controversial nature in scholarly discussions. I do not use this word with the understanding that there are no other spiritual beings, and I do not intend to imply that the gods of the nations do not exist (I read Isa 40-55 as hyperbolic expression). Rather, and I find that this view accords with the canon, by “monotheism” I mean that there is one Creator who reigns supreme over all, and this Creator is YHWH. The supposed “gods” do not rival the status of ‘elohim; instead, they are SHDYM (Deut 32:17). I prefer the word “monotheism” over “henotheism” because I do not believe that this latter word accurately captures the emic view of the canon; the Lord is not one God among many gods. The Lord reigns supreme over all.

Terrance R. Wardlaw, Jr. Elohim with the Psalms: Petitioning the Creator to Order Chaos in Oral-Derived Literature (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 37 n. 67

Christ is Risen! Χριστὸς ἀνέστη!

Happy Easter!

Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold, he offered himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered . . . No flesh [can] dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. Wherefore, he is the first fruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved. And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement. (2 Nephi 2:6-9 | Book of Mormon)

But for ours also. It [righteousness] will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification. (Romans 4:24-25 [NRSV]).

Of course, being an apologist/bibliophile, let me end this post by recommending two excellent, scholarly resources defending the historicity of the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ:

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God

Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach 

Peter and Peter's Confession--one and the same for the early Church Fathers?

The Myth:

Robert Sungenis (Roman Catholic apologist):

"When you look at all the early Fathers, for instance, they never distinguish Peter the person from Peter's confession of faith; they were one and the same." (35:45 mark)

The Reality:

John Chrysostom:

He did not say, “upon Peter” for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the Church is built. And what is this faith? “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (Migne, 52.806.75-807.1)

Therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified. (Homily LIV)

Augustine

Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognised. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. (Sermon 229)

Baptism, the Reformed Tradition, and Theological Inconsistency

It is not unusual for those who oppose baptismal regeneration to often slip into language and concepts that are utterly inconsistent with their purely symbolic understanding of baptism; John Calvin and other figures who opposed the doctrine displayed such an inconsistency, as do many modern Reformed authors. Notice the following, which is classical “speaking from both sides of one’s (theological) mouth":

The benefits communicated to us in baptism, as [the Belgic and Heidelberg catechisms] describe them, come to us only because of Christ, but they do not come from a Christ “who remains outside of us,” as Calvin argued. Both the new status and the new birth signified and sealed in baptism belong to the Reformed emphasis on the “double grace” of justification and sanctification enjoyed in union with Christ . . . At the same time, the Reformed tradition has emphasised the clear role that baptism plays as a sacrament of initiation into the Abrahamic covenant of grace under its new covenant administration (the church, inclusive of Gentiles as well as Jews). In baptism the many are incorporated into one body (Eph 4:4) and begin to participate in the life of the age to come as those who have put on the resurrected and glorified Jesus and are being conformed to the same image (Rom 4:11; 1 Cor 12:12-13). Entrance into new life in Christ the head of his body is entrance into the life of the members that receive life from and in their head (Eph 1:22-23; 2:21; Col 1:18). Though experiencing baptism does not of itself save--and though the Spirit’s effective working through the sacrament is not limited to the time of its administration (so Westminster Confession of Faith 28.6)--Christian baptism if never something merely nominal nor is it legitimately administered beyond the manifest realm of Christ’s saving work and kingly rule.

Brannon Ellis, “Union with Christ as the Covenant of Grace,” in Sanctification: Explorations in Theology and Practice, ed. Kelly M. Kapic (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2014), 79-102, here, pp. 84. 85; comment in square bracket my own.

William Hamblin on the "chariots" in Ezekiel 1

As an aside, a very good book on Ezekiel that I recently read, and highly recommend, is Ezekiel in Context: Ezekiel's Message Understood in its Historical Setting of Covenant Curses and Ancient Near Eastern Mythological Motifs by Brian Neil Peterson (Wipf and Stock, 2012).