Several contemporary neo-marcionites have developed what they dub the “Christocentric hermeneutic”. They present this as conclusive proof that the Scriptures present mutually incompatible depictions of God and as a means by which we might “responsibly” decide between these portrayals of God. Eric Seibert, for instance, argues “that the God Jesus reveals should be the standard, or measuring rod, by which all Old Testament portrayals of God are evaluated.” (Disturbing Divine Behavior, p. 185). The argument is straightforward. Christ rejects certain Old Testament depictions of God and presents contradictory depictions of God. Since he is the perfect revelation of God, we ought to give credence to what he says. When, therefore, what he says about God contradicts some of what we find elsewhere in Scripture, we ought to reject such portraits of God. On this basis neo-marcionites allege that God would not have deluged the world, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, ordered the invasion of Canaan, killed Ananias and Sapphira, nor punish the damned in hell with eternal suffering.
There are several problems with their criterion. First, they arbitrarily limit the portion of Scripture in which they say that we can find Jesus’ teaching about God. Second, they can point to no instance where Christ said that any Old Testament depiction of God was false; without this premise, they can pile up statements from Christ wherein he affirmed that God is merciful, loving, and compassionate all they want, but they will be no closer to proving their case. Third, Christ explicitly affirms several of the Old Testament depictions of God that they find objectionable. Therefore, far from proving their case, Christ proves ours; or, rather, we defend Christ’s doctrine.
Neo-Marcionites Erroneously Limit What is to be Regarded as Jesus’ Teaching
Neo-marcionites generally choose to base their (mis)understanding of Christ’s teaching on the Gospels to the exclusion of other instances where Christ is quoted in the New Testament, such as in Revelation. This is necessary on their part, because otherwise they could not even get their position off the ground. They claim that God would not cause physical infirmity or death, at least in history, as punishment for sin. Therefore, they reject the claims that God killed Uzzah or gave Uzziah leprosy, for instance. So, too, when they read Christ’s threat to the church of Thyatira they must reject it.
“I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” (Revelation 2:20-23)
What Eric Seibert says about potentially problematic eschatological portrayals of Christ in Revelation can be applied to this example, too: “While some portrayals of Jesus in the book of Revelation may be disturbing, they do not challenge my basic thesis. Since I have argued that the God Jesus reveals is known through Jesus’ life and teaching while on earth.” (p. 255)
On what basis does Seibert delimit Jesus’ revelation of God? He posits a (low) view of inspiration, which he calls “general inspiration”, that he claims is compatible with the human authors of Scripture erroneously interpreting history and the future in light of their cultural values and theological ideas. Thus, he asserts, Scripture can be inspired by God and yet contain seriously erroneous depictions of God and his supposed actions in history. Against this backdrop he claims that the Gospels are more factually credible, since they are based on eye-witness testimony, in a way, say, that Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin is not.
There are several problems with this rationale. First, it is nowhere presented in the Scriptures. Second, it would undermine the authority of the Scriptures. Third, it does not adequately deal with the particular data of Scripture. Concerning the first point, it should suffice to note, as we discussed at greater length before, that the entirety of Scripture is filled with supposedly evil and concededly good depictions of God that are often juxtaposed together. The second point will receive greater attention below. For now, this observation should suffice. It is hard to see how prophets who so often erred in historical fact, theological claims, and prophetic interpretation should be trusted when it comes to having predicted the Christ and the time of his arrival.
The third point is well illustrated by consideration of two examples. Seibert’s view requires that Stephen be in error when he reports as fact God’s judgment of Israel, Israel’s divinely aided invasion of Canaan, and God’s deportation of Israel to Babylon. If Stephen was only generally inspired, as Seibert supposed, this may be a reasonable conclusion. However, the Scriptures claim more for Stephen than mere “general inspiration”. The Acts of the Apostles claims that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, who gave him such wisdom that his opponents could not refute him. What room is there, then, for Stephen to make such serious errors about God and his dealings in history? Likewise, Seibert would have us think that John simply erred when he wrote those “disturbing” portrayals of Jesus. However, for those who accept the Scriptures, this strains the imagination. John penned things that he claims to have seen and heard. Either he heard Jesus threaten “that woman Jezebel” or not. If he did, we have an inspired (visionary) eye-witness and Seibert cannot exclude such passages from his Christocentric hermeneutic. Or else John was not generally inspired — he was simply delusional or a liar.
It is the Neo-Marcionites, Not Christ, Who Allege a Contradiction Between Divine Descriptions
Christ does not claim that God’s love, mercy, and patience is incompatible with various Old Testament narratives or depictions of God. In other words, it is Seibert, not Christ, who makes the crucial claim that Jesus contradicts these portrayals of God. Since this is so, we ought to reject his so-called Christocentric hermeneutic. To do otherwise is to go beyond what is written. (1 Corinthians 4:6)
Seibert can claim that Jesus rejects the notion that God inflicts vengeance on his foes because Christ said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:44,45) But he cannot point to any place where Christ makes this inference.
No one can deny that when the adulterous woman was brought to Christ he rebuked the crowds and pardoned her, even though under the Law she (and the man!) was deserving of death. (John 8:1-11) However, he cannot point to any place where Christ rejects the permissibility of the death penalty per se or suggests that the God who revealed the Law was merely the textual God – Seibert’s way of distinguishing how God is portrayed in the text from God in of himself – and not the actual God. On the contrary, Jesus quotes Leviticus 20:9 and describes it as one of God’s commandments in contradistinction to merely human traditions. He says, “For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘THE ONE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’” (Matthew 15:4)
Following C. S. Cowles, Seibert thinks the fact that, as reported in the Gospels, Jesus omits “day of vengeance” when he reads from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah shows that Jesus was “engaging in ‘an entirely new rewrite of Jewish theology’”: rejecting retribution and violence. (p. 195; Luke 4:17-21) However, it is unwise to read such significance into this omission. Christ plainly refers to God as one who destroys body and soul in hell, which is not what one would expect him to say if he rejected the permissibility of retribution and violence. (Matthew 10:28) Moreover, Seibert overlooks other more plausible explanations for why Christ is not recorded as reading “day of vengeance”. The first is that the Gospel account was abbreviated; Christ did read that line and perhaps other ones. The second, which I find the more plausible, is that Christ did not read that line because his first advent was concerned with making atonement for sin; his second coming, however, will be concerned with vengeance. That line will be fulfilled then. (Hebrews 9:28; Romans 2:5; Acts 17:31) (Consider, also, that the line may have had at least a partial fulfillment in the predicted judgment of Jerusalem.)
Some neo-marcionites, such as Seibert, often overstate the data to allege that Jesus rejects certain Old Testament views about God. For instance, he suggests that since Christ rebuked the people for thinking that the eighteen who died when the tower of Siloam fell were worse sinners than they were and said that the man born blind, whom he healed, was not blind because he or his parents sinned that Jesus therefore rejected the claim, which he erroneously attributes to the Old Testament, that physical infirmities were (always?) the direct punishment for sin. (pp. 200-202) Seibert, however, cannot even claim confidently that Jesus rejected the idea that the eighteen were punished; Christ only says that the people should not view them as worse sinners than they themselves were. Arguably interpreting their deaths as punishment would, if anything, strengthen the exhortation to repent or likewise perish. Nor can Seibert reason that, since Christ teaches that one man’s blindness was not due to his sin or the sins of his parents, that he repudiates those Old and New Testament accounts where people are struck with sickness, blindness, or death because of their sins. That would be an unwarranted generalization.
Seibert is unable to point to any time where Christ says that God’s patience means that he would never kill someone in history, or where Christ says God’s love would mean that he would never order the destruction of the Canaanites. He simply assumes that this is the significance of what Jesus says or does not say. If Seibert were correct, however, we should expect Jesus to have made these statements himself. That he does not do so indicates that we have no reason to accept Seibert’s thesis. On the contrary, we are given reason to reject it outright.
Christ Affirms Accounts that Neo-Marcionites Reject
Seibert and those like him recognize that they must do what they can to show that Jesus never affirmed any of the problematic portrayals of God he previously identified. Seibert seems to recognizes that it would be fatal to his case if he we can show, say, that Christ affirmed that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; it would be highly implausible to suggest that Christ would regard this as historical and justified but would object to, say, the invasion of Canaan. In order to try to pull this off, however, Seibert has to resort to manifest sophistries, which we shall refute.
Seibert’s acknowledgement that “Jesus does refer to certain Old Testament narratives that contain disturbing divine behavior” is a gross understatement. (p. 190) Christ affirms the historicity and righteousness of several of God’s judgments, such as the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the destruction of Tyre and Sidon. He also alludes to the three and a half year drought and consequent famine that God brought about through the prayer of Elijah, affirms the rectitude of the threatened destruction of Nineveh proclaimed by Jonah, and accepts the account of God’s sending poisonous snakes against Israel. Moreover, he predicts Jerusalem’s destruction as punishment None of these things is consistent with or gives any reason to accept Seibert’s neo-marcionism.
Seibert’s response to Jesus’ affirmation of the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the destruction of Tyre and Sidon is as follows: “Jesus does not explicitly identify God as the cause of either of these disasters . . . the way Jesus tells these stories keeps the problem of divine violence in the background. More significantly, it is clear that Jesus’ purpose in using these stories was not to suggest that God’s behavior in these narratives was representative of how God operates in history.” (p. 190) However it will be apparent to any competent and non-ideologically driven reader that Seibert is willfully obtuse in order to attempt to produce a silence from which he might attempt to argue his way out of this irrefutable objection. We will demonstrate this by quoting relevant passages and pointing to obvious features of the text that Seibert must willfully overlook to argue as he has.
The Destruction of Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah
Then he began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." (Matthew 11:20-24)
Christ is plainly using the destruction of Sodom, related in detail in Genesis, and the previously predicted and fulfilled destruction of Tyre and Sidon, recorded in Ezekiel, as examples that render future judgment certain and reveal something of its nature: these were warning examples. It would be unreasonable for us to suppose, then, that he does not regard these incidents as divine punishment. The nature of the analogy he is making requires that he regard these as historical judgments God visited destruction upon these wicked cities. So, we can easily refute Seibert’s pretension that Christ is not affirming something about how God (sometimes) acts in history.
It is entirely unreasonable for us to suppose, as Seibert seems to accept, that Christ accepted that these cities were destroyed, but did not think that they were destroyed by God as punishment for their sins. Why accept the Scriptural account that Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed in such a spectacular way unless you also accept the Scriptural account’s claim that these cities were destroyed by God as punishment? Likewise, why refer to Tyre and Sidon at all unless he supposed that Ezekiel had correctly predicted their destruction as punishment from God for their sins? What else made the destruction of these cities significant and so apt as an analogy for the doom awaiting Chorazin and Bethsaida?
Moreover, even the very words Jesus used shows that he regarded the destruction of these cities as punishment from God. Jesus says that if the miracles he performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida had taken place in Sodom and Gomorrah “they would have repented long ago”. Likewise he says that if the miracles done in Capernaum had been done in Tyre and Sidon they “would have remained until this day”. If their repentance would have saved the cities from destruction, he plainly teaches that their destruction was just punishment for their sins; and who but God could do this? That he says that they would have repented long ago and remained until this day shows that he is not merely referring to these accounts as literary accounts. Cities that were merely literary fictions could not have continued to remain to that day.
The Deluge of Noah
“As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man.For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.” (Matthew 24:37-39)
We have no need to repeat in detail everything we have said before. Much of what we said previously applies to this passage, too. Christ would not have compared the days of Noah to the coming of the Son of man unless they were similar; the days of Noah being presented as a warning example that makes it certain that the Son of man will return and gives an idea as to the nature of his coming. Since this is so, and since the coming of the Son of man clearly involves judgment and destruction, it follows that Christ regarded the deluge of Noah to have involved punishment and disaster. In other words he affirms this biblical account, contrary to the claim of Seibert.
The Drought and Famine Brought About Through Elijah’s Prayer
“But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” (Luke 4:25-27)
Seibert’s does not apply his ridiculous standard – “Jesus does not explicitly identify God as the cause of either of these disasters” – consistently. When Seibert reads Luke 4:25-27, he is able to claim: “The two stories Jesus refers to – one from 1 Kgs. 17:8-24 and the other from 2 Kgs. 5:1-19 – are stories about God’s grace toward outsiders during the prophetic ministry of Elijah and Elisha, respectively. They are stories Jesus uses to emphasize God’s involvement with – and care for – non-Israelities.” (p. 189) How is he able to do this, though? Christ only explicitly says that Elijah was sent to the Sidonian widow, not that he was sent by God! And he only explicitly says that Namaan the Syrian was cleansed, not that he was cleansed by God! Jesus does not explicitly identify God as the cause of either of these miracles!
Of course, it is obvious that Christ is referring to God’s kind provision for the widow and the general. But that raises the following question. Why is Seibert able to see that Christ affirms God’s agency in sending Elijah to the widow and in cleansing Naaman but is unable to see that Christ affirms the same in the passages previously discussed?
Moreover, how is Seibert able to accept that Christ affirms as historical fact that God sent the prophet to the widow and cleansed the general but not make the obvious inference that he would also have accepted the entire accounts of which these actions form parts. It is nonsensical to suppose that Christ trusted the biblical account to accurately record Elijah being sent to the Sidonian widow during this famine but did not trust the Scriptures to accurately relate the cause of the drought and consequent famine, namely, that it was caused by God through the word of Elijah. And strains credulity to suppose that Christ thought that God had indeed healed Naaman but did not believe that God had struck Gehazi with Naaman’s leprosy.
Jonah’s Embassy to Nineveh
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:39-41)
Seibert attempts to argue that Jonah is not a historically accurate narrative recording Jonah’s mission to Nineveh. In doing so he attempts to respond to the argument that, since Jesus refers to this account, it is historically accurate. “Jesus’ reference to the story of Jonah is not sufficient to ensure its historicity. It is not unusual for people to refer to well-known stories without believing they actually happened.” (p. 94) Seibert’s ability to understate things knows no bounds. It is simply not credible that Christ’s claim that “the men of Nineveh will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it” is merely a literary allusion. Merely literary figures do not rise up on the last day and condemn other people who rise up on the last day. Plainly, he referred to them as real persons.
Moreover, we can point out that Christ mentions Jonah’s mission to Nineveh and their subsequent repentance alongside the account of the queen of the South visiting Solomon. Whatever (weak) arguments Seibert might have tried to bring against the historical accuracy of Jonah based on its supposed genre are inapplicable to this manifestly historical account. Since Christ mentions them in the same breath, we have good reason to suppose he accepted both as historical even if he had not referred to the future resurrection of the erstwhile denizens of Nineveh. Besides that, I would suggest that a merely literary reference would be less fitting for a comparison with Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Since we have demonstrated that Christ plainly referred to Jonah’s mission to Nineveh as historically accurate, we are able to note its relevance for the argument we have been making. He plainly affirms that God did threaten the destruction of the city and it was only on account of its repentance that God had mercy on them. In other words, if they had not repented, Jesus may have referred to Nineveh in the same breath as he did Tyre and Sidon or Sodom and Gomorrah. This is another reason to affirm that Christ taught that God can (and sometimes did) destroy cities on account of their wickedness, something Seibert asks us to disbelieve.
The Bronze Serpent
Jesus compares his own death to Moses’ lifting up of the bronze serpent in the wilderness. John 3:14 records him having said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” Christ draws a comparison from an account whose historicity he does not question. Just as Moses’ action was the divinely provided way to escape the punishment of poisonous snakes, so to Christ’s death is the divinely provided way to escape the divinely mandated punishment for sin.
Jesus Predicts the Destruction of Jerusalem on Account of its Sins
Seibert is aware that a diverse range of scholars – orthodox Christians, those of questionable doctrinal commitments, or none at all – claim that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in the fashion of Old Testament prophets, that is, as punishment for their rejection of him. He attempts to refute this suggestion in several ways, which we will now refute.
"Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation." (Luke 19:42-44)
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:20-24)
Against this claim he makes two arguments. First, Jesus did not explicitly identify this as punishment from God. “First, despite what is often asserted about these passages, neither explicitly claims that the coming destruction of Jerusalem will be an act of divine judgment. Unlike Old Testament texts, which at times unequivocally describe historical disasters as acts of divine judgment, neither of these passages is so categorical.” (p. 258) However, this is not credible. Scholars are right to note the similarities these passages have with Old Testament passages that predicted prior times Jerusalem was to be destroyed as punishment. These similarities do not lose their significance because they are not explicit enough for Seibert’s liking. These similarities would be part of why the disciples would have easily understood quite clearly that Jesus was predicting that Jerusalem would be judged.
Seibert also overlooks the fact that Christ ascribes the destruction of Jerusalem to their failure to receive him; this can be understood in no other way than that Jerusalem was to be punished. The structure in the first Lukan passage is quite clear. ‘If you had known what would make for peace, then you would not be destroyed. You will be destroyed, because you did not know the time of your visitation.’ The causal relation implied between their failing to know the time of their visitation and what would have made for the peace, namely, to receive Christ, and their destruction, plainly indicates the punitive nature of Jerusaelm’s destruction. Likewise, in the second passage Christ’s description of those times as “days of vengeance” and a time when “wrath” would come “upon this people” “to fulfill all that is written” makes it fairly clear that Christ is indicating that Jerusalem’s destruction is the will of God on account of their sins and rejection of Christ.
Seibert’s other argument is to argue that the passages from Luke 19 and 21 are Lukan interpolations and not genuine words of Christ. He does not give arguments for this. In fact his citation of the Jesus Seminary greatly undermines the credibility of this claim; nor does it deal with Luke 11:48-51 (Cf. Matthew 23:31-38), which we will quote below.. But to respond precisely on the terms he raised, namely the reliability of the Gospels, is beyond the scope of this present essay. We commend the work of Lydia McGrew, among others, to any who are interested in a robust defense of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts.
“So you are witnesses and consent to the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, `I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it shall be required of this generation.” (Luke 11:48-51)
Christ’s claim that the blood of all the righteous – not the least of which would be his own! – would be required from that generation is hard to misread as anything other than a clear indication that Jerusalem would be destroyed by God as punishment. (Moreover, the inclusion of Abel is significant. It shows that Jesus regarded the account of Abel's death as historical. Merely literary crimes do not make anyone liable for punishment.)
Seibert also attempts to deal with a passage in Matthew that is often cited as indicating that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment.
“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.' But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, `The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.” (Matthew 22:2-10)
The key statement is in verses 5-7. It is reasonable to interpret this passage as predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. Seibert does not attempt to deny this. How, then, does Seibert attempt to deal with this passage? He alleges that these verses (not the entire parable) is a Matthean interpolation that “neither originated with Jesus nor accurately reflected his teaching”. (p. 260) However, in light of what we have said above, even if this was an interpolation, it is clear that this does accurately reflect what Jesus taught. Moreover, Seibert does not provide a strong reason to regard these verses as an interpolation.
Sebiert’s only argument against the authenticity of these verses is that “the narrative makes more sense if they are omitted”. Why? Because he thinks it doesn’t make sense to postpone the banquet while the meal is ready in order to make war. This objection is too clever by half. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s comment on this point is worded so well that I will simply reproduce it here. “To represent the expedition against the rebels, and the destruction of their city as actually taking place while the supper is being prepared,—a thing hardly conceivable in real life,—is to introduce an episode quite in accordance with the illustrative character of the parable, which after all is only a fictitious narrative.” That the narrative of the parable makes sense, arguably more sense, if these verses are omitted is not an indication that they are inauthentic. The driving concern of a parable, why its characters are included and act as they do, is the message that is conveyed through the narrative; a parable is carried along, primarily, not by its internal storyworld but by its underlying message. Judging these verses in this light, Christ’s intention to warn of the upcoming punishment of Jerusalem is enough of a reason to include these verses in his parable, even if – let us suppose for the sake of argument – that they somewhat complicate the narrative of the parable.
I am not certain that the parable actually presents the destruction of the city as postponing the banquet, as both Seibert and Meyer do. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose that in the parable’s narrative the king remained where he was. Jesus only says that the king sent his troops, not that the king himself left. So, even if the destruction of the city would have occurred weeks after the order was given, that it’s destruction is mentioned before the resumption of the banquet preparation is not enough of a reason to suppose that that entire campaign took place before it. Since the destruction is significant and naturally follows upon the king’s order, it is natural to mention it before describing the resumption of the banquet preparations. None of this suggests that it took place before the banquet occurred. Consider this analogy. Suppose I had told you, “I had spilled my drink on my new shirt. So I stepped outside and ordered some detergent, with which I washed my shirt. Afterward, I went back to the gathering.” It would not be necessary to suppose that I went back to my house, waited for the detergent to arrive at my house, cleaned my shirt, and then returned to the house. Rather, you would understand that I was merely mentioning that I (later) used this detergent to clean my shirt.
Conclusion
A neo-marcionite so-called Christocentric hermeneutic requires that we limit what counts as Christ’s teaching about God to (most of) what is contained in the Gospels; it also requires us to misunderstand some of the things it acknowledges Christ to have said. We have shown that there is no good reason to do either of these things. Neo-marcionites allege that what Christ teaches about God is contradictory to many descriptions of God in the Old Testament. We have shown that Christ nowhere makes such claims or entertains this inference. By doing so we undermined any reason to accept or use their hermeneutic to reject the integrity of the Scriptures. Lastly, we demonstrated that Christ affirmed several Old Testament judgments and predicted that Jerusalem would be destroyed as punishment for rejecting him: the very opposite of the sort of thing that neo-marcionites would have us believe. In light of this it is simply not plausible to suppose that Christ would reject other biblical accounts of God’s judgments within history or suppose that Scripture sometimes affirms erroneous characterizations of God. The neo-marcionite position is entirely refuted.
