Stephen Motyer
1. Chinese Verse of the Day:
張載 (世稱橫渠先生) (1020 - 1077)
橫渠四句:
為天地立心，為生民立命，
為往聖繼絕學，為萬世開太平。
2. Stephen Motyer of the London School of Theology writes the entry 'Anti-Semitism' in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.
As an entry in a reference work, it is competently written.
I particularly like the way Motyer organizes his entry around questions.
I was influenced by Karl Popper and like to organize my thoughts around problem-solution or question-answer.
The problem or question provides a goal, aim or purpose by which the rest of the entry can be evaluated: did the rest of the entry solved the problem or answer the question that was posed in the beginning of the entry?
Thus, after defining the term "anti-Semitism", Motyer raised the general question: "whether the NT can be called 'anti-Semitic' just because in various ways it rejects the religion of the Jews. Does theological argument against Judaism constitute hostility toward Jews?" (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism") (Italics in original.)
The background to this general question provides the context for three specific questions, the answers to which constituted the rest of the entry: "So we are faced with three questions. First, is there a proper distinction to be drawn between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism? Second, is the NT view of Jesus essentially anti-Semitic? And third, what are we to say about the so-called 'anti-Semitic' texts in the NT, like those quoted above?" (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism")
為天地立心，為生民立命，
為往聖繼絕學，為萬世開太平。
2. Stephen Motyer of the London School of Theology writes the entry 'Anti-Semitism' in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.
As an entry in a reference work, it is competently written.
I particularly like the way Motyer organizes his entry around questions.
I was influenced by Karl Popper and like to organize my thoughts around problem-solution or question-answer.
The problem or question provides a goal, aim or purpose by which the rest of the entry can be evaluated: did the rest of the entry solved the problem or answer the question that was posed in the beginning of the entry?
Thus, after defining the term "anti-Semitism", Motyer raised the general question: "whether the NT can be called 'anti-Semitic' just because in various ways it rejects the religion of the Jews. Does theological argument against Judaism constitute hostility toward Jews?" (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism") (Italics in original.)
The background to this general question provides the context for three specific questions, the answers to which constituted the rest of the entry: "So we are faced with three questions. First, is there a proper distinction to be drawn between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism? Second, is the NT view of Jesus essentially anti-Semitic? And third, what are we to say about the so-called 'anti-Semitic' texts in the NT, like those quoted above?" (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism")
Motyer argues that one can disagree with Judaism without being anti-Semitic.
Motyer also argues that regarding Jesus as the "meaning" of the OT scriptures is not anti-Semitic.
Motyer then provides a reading of two New Testament passages that are used by some anti-Semites; I find Motyer's readings implausible.
3. The first passage Motyer briefly explains is John 8:44.
The following is John 8:39-47 from the English Standard Version (ESV):
Motyer also argues that regarding Jesus as the "meaning" of the OT scriptures is not anti-Semitic.
Motyer then provides a reading of two New Testament passages that are used by some anti-Semites; I find Motyer's readings implausible.
3. The first passage Motyer briefly explains is John 8:44.
The following is John 8:39-47 from the English Standard Version (ESV):
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
Motyer explains John 8:44 thus: " 'You are of your father the devil' (John 8:44) is, in context, a warning that, if 'the Jews' persist in plotting Jesus' death, or in regarding it as justified, they will forge a moral kinship with the devil, who is a murderer." (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism") (Italic in original.)
Motyer, in order to tone down what some regards as anti-Semitism in the New Testament, reads John 8:44 as a "warning" not to "forge a moral kinship with the devil, who is a murderer".
But this is not plausible at all.
Only three verses later, John 8:47 says: "The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
What the text asserts is much stronger than a "warning".
The New Testament is quite consistent in this: when one believe Jesus Christ, there is a transition from wrath to grace, or from death to life, or from of the devil to of God.
4. The second passage Motyer briefly explains is Matthew 27:25.
The following is Matthew 27:24-26 from the English Standard Version (ESV):
Motyer explains John 8:44 thus: " 'You are of your father the devil' (John 8:44) is, in context, a warning that, if 'the Jews' persist in plotting Jesus' death, or in regarding it as justified, they will forge a moral kinship with the devil, who is a murderer." (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism") (Italic in original.)
Motyer, in order to tone down what some regards as anti-Semitism in the New Testament, reads John 8:44 as a "warning" not to "forge a moral kinship with the devil, who is a murderer".
But this is not plausible at all.
Only three verses later, John 8:47 says: "The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
What the text asserts is much stronger than a "warning".
The New Testament is quite consistent in this: when one believe Jesus Christ, there is a transition from wrath to grace, or from death to life, or from of the devil to of God.
4. The second passage Motyer briefly explains is Matthew 27:25.
The following is Matthew 27:24-26 from the English Standard Version (ESV):
24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.
Motyer explains Matthew 27:25 thus: "Similarly Matt. 27:25 ('His blood be on us and on our children!') is an appeal to the 'children' of the speakers -- now contemporary with the evangelist -- not to accept the verdict of their parents, that Jesus' execution is a 'safe bet' before God." (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism") (Italic in original.)
Motyer, in order to tone down what some regards as anti-Semitism in the New Testament, reads Matthew 27:25 as an "appeal to the 'children' of the speakers".
But this is not plausible at all.
What the text recorded was the crowd claiming that they and their children will bear responsibility for the death of Jesus.
Whether a Jewish father can bind his children for the consequences of his action in this way is another question.
But nowhere does the text suggest an "appeal to the 'children' of the speakers".
5. I do not believe the Bible and Christianity are anti-Semitic.
Stephen Motyer has so argued in his entry in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.
Some Christians were anti-Semitic is a fact of history.
Some New Testament passages were misused by anti-Semites is also a fact of history.
But these facts do not legitimize interpretative abuses in the other direction.
References:
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. 2005. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
"張載 (北宋)", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BC%B5%E8%BC%89_%28%E5%8C%97%E5%AE%8B%29
(accessed 2012-11-07).
End.
Motyer explains Matthew 27:25 thus: "Similarly Matt. 27:25 ('His blood be on us and on our children!') is an appeal to the 'children' of the speakers -- now contemporary with the evangelist -- not to accept the verdict of their parents, that Jesus' execution is a 'safe bet' before God." (Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, s.v. "Anti-Semitism") (Italic in original.)
Motyer, in order to tone down what some regards as anti-Semitism in the New Testament, reads Matthew 27:25 as an "appeal to the 'children' of the speakers".
But this is not plausible at all.
What the text recorded was the crowd claiming that they and their children will bear responsibility for the death of Jesus.
Whether a Jewish father can bind his children for the consequences of his action in this way is another question.
But nowhere does the text suggest an "appeal to the 'children' of the speakers".
5. I do not believe the Bible and Christianity are anti-Semitic.
Stephen Motyer has so argued in his entry in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.
Some Christians were anti-Semitic is a fact of history.
Some New Testament passages were misused by anti-Semites is also a fact of history.
But these facts do not legitimize interpretative abuses in the other direction.
References:
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. 2005. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
"張載 (北宋)", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BC%B5%E8%BC%89_%28%E5%8C%97%E5%AE%8B%29
(accessed 2012-11-07).
End.
