A Good Idea?

What I Just Finished Reading

2011-07-02T06:11:00.001-07:00

The Christian Counselor's Manual by Jay Adams

John MacArthur: Servant of the Word and Flock by Iain Murray

What I Just Finished Reading

2011-06-22T14:17:00.000-07:00

Christ-Centered Preaching by Bryan Chapell

Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands by Paul David Tripp

What I Just Finished Reading

2011-06-21T13:05:00.000-07:00

Preaching with Bold Assurance by Hershael York and Bert Decker

Toward and Exegetical Theology by Walt Kaiser

Respectable Sins by Jerry Bridges

Seeing with New Eyes by David Powlison

The Four by Peter Leithart

Christ-Centered Preaching

2011-05-25T03:39:00.000-07:00

An excellent and helpful reminder from Bryan Chappell on the nature of Christ-Centered Preaching:

"Christ-centered preaching rightly understood does not seek to discover where Christ is mentioned in every text but to disclose where every text stands in relation to Christ. The grace of God culminating in the person and work of Jesus unfolds in many dimensions throughout the pages of Scripture. The goal of the preacher is not to find novel ways of identifying Christ in every text (or naming Jesus in every sermon) but to show how each text manifests God's grace in order to prepare and enable his people to embrace the hope provided by Christ."

Bryan Chappell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 279.

What I Just Finished Reading

2011-03-12T08:02:00.001-08:00

40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law by Thomas Schreiner

Romans by Thomas Schreiner

What I Just Finished Reading

2011-01-16T12:48:00.000-08:00

Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey by Scott Moreau, Gary Corwin, and Gary McGee

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-12-30T20:59:00.000-08:00

Whose Community? Which Interpretation? by Merold Westphal

Excellent book on the role of the reader in hermeneutics. A defense of Gadamerian interpretation. Recommended.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-12-25T12:25:00.001-08:00

Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible by John O'Keefe and R.R. Reno

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-12-17T12:55:00.000-08:00

Christian Mission in the Modern World by John Stott

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-12-14T09:20:00.000-08:00

Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Christian Scripture by Joel Green

Discovering Jesus: Why Four Gospels to Portray One Person? by T.D. Alexander

The Great Commission Resurgence: Fulfilling God's Mandate in Our Time edited by Chuck Lawless and Adam Greenway

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-11-30T13:00:00.001-08:00

Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World edited by C.J. Mahaney

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-11-30T12:58:00.001-08:00

Against Christianity by Peter Leithart

Intertextuality in Biblical Studies Part 7 - Concluding Observations

2010-11-20T08:16:00.000-08:00

Concluding Observations

Having completed our survey of the discussion thus far I now briefly offer a few proposals for the future of this discussion. These proposals are submitted as I attempt to balance wearing two different hats; the first being that of a hermeneutics and theology student and the second being that of confessional Evangelical. Thus these proposals are intended for those communities that share either one or the other (or both) of my self-identifications. Those that over the past 20 or so pages have learned to hear a subtext echo beneath the surface of the text will see in these statements my own bias in many of the controversies surrounding intertextuality.

First, Evangelical Biblical scholars must take a page from Hays, Allison, and Huizenga and see the validity to some post-modern interpretive theory. Complete rejection of all things post-modern is okay so long as it follows careful dialogue with an open ear, but complete rejection of all things post-modern simply because they carry a demonized label within our community is intellectually irresponsible. Some of post-modern literary theory is new but must not be rejected for that reason alone. Evangelicals, particularly those of the Reformed stripe have a penchant for treasuring seasoned traditions, even interpretive ones. In some instances this is Biblical fidelity, in others it is inverse “chronological snobbery.”[1] If we come to stand at odds with our Modernist forebears we can take comfort in the fact that so too did our Pre-Modern brethren before us, often on the same issues, sometimes for very similar reasons.

Second, the role of the reader in hermeneutics needs yet more exploration. Huizenga’s appropriation of Eco is a healthy start and we would do well to give both Huizenga and Eco more consideration. However, more work needs to be done connecting the role of the reader in the hermeneutical process to the broader web of theological convictions shared by (conservative) Christians. It is not enough to stop at the level of literary and hermeneutical theory, as these questions must also be explored in more theological categories. Further, authors must grope for language, illustrations, and explanations of the reader’s role in the hermeneutical task which are accessible to a larger audience. Allison and Leithart have already commenced this task well, those that come after must continue in the same vein.

Third, the intertextual task cannot be confined to mere discovery of an intertext’s presence. It must continue to push on until it arrives at its theological value. This means that the meaning-effect that takes place when a text is re-appropriated (especially within the context of the canon) will probably need more exploration as well. Ultimately, if the Bible is an ecclesial document given for a transformative purpose then intertext must drive us to theological formulation and theological formulation to transformation. All intertextual readings which don’t aim at edification of the saints cannot be considered a Christian reading.

Fourth, contra Beetham we must abandon all efforts to create rigid hermeneutical structures around the intertextual task. Beale’s expository approach must be abandoned (or at least altered). Further, Beetham’s proposal that all allusions come from a single identifiable source must be outright rejected. The complex and intertextually thick literary world of Scripture must be able to speak from all levels.

Fifth, more exploration needs to be done on the relation between science and art in hermeneutics, and particularly in the field of intertextuality. A list of criteria quickly qualified by a statement demanding that we maintain “artistic sensibility” characterizes almost every discussion of this topic. The felt-tension between the science and art of reading warrant further serious study. I do not believe the mystery of where these two interpretive realities meet will ever be fully articulated but more clarity is certainly possible.

Sixth, Jeffrey Russell has argued that enlightenment historians demonized pre-modern peoples by imposing onto them a conviction they in fact never held, the belief in a flat earth.[2] This is chronological hubris, the same hubris that causes systematic theologians to misrepresent or outright ignore the value of Patristic and Medieval exegesis. It seems an entire academic career could be made debunking misguided accusations made against pre-modern hermeneutical practices and a fresh, open look at what the Fathers have to teach us about reading our Bible is needed. Their world was not flat, neither was their hermeneutic.

Seventh, new developments in intertextual theory demand that we re-evaluate some of the questions we ask, or at least ask the same questions in a different discursive context. The thorny hermeneutical and theological issue of how the Old and New Testaments relate continues to demand greater clarity. Intertextuality may provide new light on an old issue and save the conversation from growing stagnant as it essentially had become prior to the publication of Echoes and other similar works. Before asking how the New Testament relates to the Old perhaps we should first ask how texts in general relate to other texts, then how canonical documents relate to themselves internally, and finally how the canon of Scripture should be understood as a self-referencing web of intertexts. “How does the New Testament use the Old?” is a valid question, its parameters of inquiry, however, just might be too narrow.

[1] C.S. Lewis, “On the Reading of Old Books,” in On the Incarnation (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1944), 3-10.

[2] Jeffrey Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth: Comlumbus and Modern Historians (New York: Praeger, 1991).

Intertextuality in Biblical Studies Part 6 - Leroy Huizenga and Peter Leithart

2010-11-19T10:03:00.000-08:00

Two Recent Voices to Join the Discussion: Leroy Huizenga and Peter Leithart

Leroy Huizenga has made a significant contribution to the discussion of intertextual reading with the publication of his Wheaton dissertation, The New Isaac.[1] Huizenga’s aim is to incorporate the hermenutical and literary theories employed by semiotician Umberto Eco into the intertextuality discussion. Huizenga views Eco’s “Model Reader” theory as “a disciplined, determinative, historical reader-response approach that permits adequate consideration of…narrative dynamics and thus the phenomenon of [Scriptural] allusion.”[2] Eco’s theory, as well as Huizienga’s interpretation of it, is far too complex and lengthy to warrant inclusion in the paper.[3] However, we will briefly consider how Huizenga merges the current intertextuality discussion in Biblical studies with insights from Eco.

Briefly stated, Eco submits his literary theory in stark opposition to a Saussurean linguistics which views meaning as a function words relating to abstract ideals outside a particular cultural matrix. This creates a dictionary-based model of reading as opposed to Eco’s proposed encyclopedia-based model. In this model, texts are particular expressions of the cultural encyclopedia from which they were birthed, an encyclopedia that includes “all pieces of cultural knowledge”[4] and is thus “virtually infinite.”[5]

What then limits the boundaries of a texts meaning in this encyclopedic model of reading? Eco identifies the reader as the interpretant that stands between the text and the encyclopedic world in which it was formed. That is, the text is an “instantiation” of its world’s semiotic matrix. The Model Reader is the one who activates the appropriate components of the cultural encyclopedia through careful attention to the intentio operis, the intention of the Text as a whole.[6]

Though Huizenga shares many sympathies with Hays, his adoption of Eco’s hermeneutical theory leads him to reject Hays’ desire to hold the possible loci of an echo in “creative tension.” Instead Huizenga proposes a shift in categories. Instead of the “creative tension” model provided by Hays, the locus of the echo is to be sought in the unique relationship between the intentio operis and the Model Reader.[7] This means, of course, that (contra Hays) the “symbolic field [of the] single great textual precursor”[8] of the New Testament documents cannot be restricted merely to the Old Testament. Instead the cultural encyclopedia in which the New Testament was produced “breaks the boundaries of the MT canon and necessitates the consideration of extrabiblical texts and traditions.”[9] Huizenga essentially submits that though we have been hearing voices in the cave of intertextuality perhaps we have not yet come to realize just how many voices resonate throughout the cave. The voices of Scripture indeed echo throughout but so also do the interpretive traditions which have been spawned from them.[10]

These convictions also drive Huizenga to “revise” Hays’ criteria for hearing an echo. Huizenga believes that there is much good in Hays criteria and finds no need to increase (or decrease) the number of criteria or even change the categories (i.e. availability, volume recurrence, etc). Instead Huizenga reworks each category to make it more conducive to incorporating the possibility of hearing echoes from the larger cultural encyclopedia which surrounded the world of the authors.[11]

Peter Leithart’s Deep Exegesis[12] offers a fresh and insightful reflection on Intertextuality.[13] In Deep Exegesis, Leithart chooses not to self-consciously submit his work to the community that has been discussing intertextuality and accompanying literary mera-theories for the past 25 years. However, anyone with ears to hear (and who pays attention to such details as footnotes and bibliography) will find that Leithart is not ignorant of the dialogue but shows a complete awareness of the larger academic issues being discussed.[14] However, Leithart attempts to make the theory of intertextual reading accessible to a larger audience of Scripture readers while at the same time not sacrificing the meaningful contribution he can make to the larger academic discussion.

At the heart of Leithart’s proposal is that “the text is a joke.” That is to say, “even at the most literal level, the meaning of the joke depends on all sorts of things that are not there, things from outside the text.”[15] In the same way the meaning of texts in Scripture is often dependent on what is quite simply not there. And what is “not there” is the literary corpus evoked by the presence of an intertext. Thus, “a reader will get the poet’s point fully only if he not only knows the prior text but also knows that he needs to know the prior text, and knows when to bring which part of the prior text into play. An interpreter is there to explain what is not in the text.”[16]

Leithart also addresses the issue of criteria, or in his own words, “how can we be sure we have gotten the joke and not read unintended humor in a serious text? How can we know we are laughing at the right things.”[17] Leithart moves in a different yet perhaps complementary direction from the objective “criteria list” approach provided by Hays and others. Instead he calls his readers to recognize that all interpretive hypotheses, even in the hard sciences (or in this case the “hard science” of grammatical-historical interpretation) require “imaginative leaps.”[18] Both in the hard sciences and in literary analyses (such as those involving proposed intertextual connections along with their interpretations) the conclusions that scientists and interpreters reach are not embraced as true because they methodically checked the criteria boxes of an infallible method. Rather, “the hypothesis is compelling because of the over-all coherence of the story, which encompasses many established facts which goes beyond that mere collection of facts.”[19] Nowhere does Leithart deny the value of Hays’ or others lists of criteria. Instead, it seems he exalts one of Hays’ criteria to a pre-eminent status, perhaps the “test” that interpreters are wary of the most: Satisfaction.[20]

An emphasis upon “satisfaction” does not mean that Leithart believes that no constraints are to be placed on interpretation. He openly repudiates the radical deconstructionist and poststructuralist reader-response methods that Eco calls “interpretive drift.”[21] These constraints demand that any interpretative proposal must (1) encompass the data of the letter of the text, (2) operate within the constraints of historical setting, and (3) operate within the constraints of biblical conventions.[22] Ultimately, Leithart advocates the simple singular criteria that Scripture be read on its own terms. Which is why “the good interpreter of Scripture must have Scripture at his fingertips, because Scripture itself provides the first context for interpreting any particular portion of Scripture.”[23]

Leithart’s refusal to employ rigid hermeneutical structures has garnered some disapproval. One reviewer of Deep Exegesis criticized Leithart’s work as an attempt to flatten out the genre distinctions within Scripture into one meta-genre of poetry.[24] Perhaps, Leithart does in fact want to us entertain the idea that works of non-poetic genre in Scripture (narratives in particular) are much “thicker” in their canonical and theological internal cross-referencing than we give them credit for. But this critique ultimately misses the point. Leithart’s emphasis is not on the text itself but on the reader. He is not so much concerned about turning Scripture’s texts into poetry as he is with turning Scripture’s readers into poets.

It is this fact which brings us to the heart of Leithart’s argument. His accentuation of the role of the reader is a subtle attempt to respond to the question Hays asked several decades ago, “If echo is a metaphorical way of talking about a hermeneutical event…in whose mind does that event occur?” This brings us back to the matter of the locus of an echo. It is clear from Leithart’s publications that he ascribes to the more holistic approach that sees a vital role for author, audience, and reader in an intertextual event. Yet Leithart articulates, perhaps more forcefully than those who have preceded him, the role of the reader in the interpretive event as grounds for a certain antipathy toward method. For Leithart reading Scripture well is not the result of using a certain type of method but being a certain type of person. His own explanation of this is worthy of reproduction here:

There is no foolproof method for achieving such mastery of Scripture. Patristic commentators had Scripture at their fingertips because they read and copied Scripture; they heard it read; they chanted the Psalms and many had the Psalter memorized; they ate, drank, and breathed Scripture. And as a result, any single Scripture was not a single Scripture but brought a dozen other Scriptures immediately to mind. Method is a way of making up for the failure to master Scripture…

If interpretation is more like getting a joke than it is like dissecting a frog, then only certain kinds of people will be good interpreters.

If texts are jokes, no strictly procedural hermeneutics will do. Rather, a "humorneutical" approach emphasizes instead the character of the interpreter. What, after all, can one do with someone who has no sense of humor? Analysis and teaching might improve things marginally, but that person's main problem is not a technical but a spiritual one: somebody without a sense of humor suffers from a contracted soul, and the only real solution is conversion. Interpretive skills can be taught and improved, but only the glad of heart make good readers.[25]

[1] Leroy Huizenga, The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

[2] Allison had already been appropriating some of Eco’s work, but did not give it the full treatment that Huizena did. See Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 1-24.

[3] The interested reader can pursue Eco’s theory further in Huizienga, 21-74, as well as in Umberto Eco The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979).

[4] Huizenga, 27.

[5] Eco quoted in Ibid., 28.

[6] Ibid., 29-41.

[7] Ibid., 57. One of the most important statements to this regard occurs in Huizenga’s discussion of how he understands the relationship between allusion and echo. “Hays uses ‘allusion’ and ‘echo’ interchangeably, due to his eclectic combination of various possibilities for the locus of allusion/echo. As Hays notes, however, “allusion” really has more to do with conscious intent and precise verbal affinity, whereas “echo has to do with fainter resonances that may or may not have been intended. Thus, Hays generally uses ‘allusion’ for ‘obvious intertextual references,’ and the term ‘echoes’ for those that are subtler. It is a distinction of degree. I however, would propose a distinction of kind: The term ‘allusion’ should refer to the verbal, syntactic links between texts, and the term ‘echo’ should refer to that which the Model Reader is to produce by means of that verbal allusion, the effect created by the allusion in the Model Reader’s act of reading.” Ibid., 62. Emphasis in original.

[8] Hays, Echoes, 15.

[9] Huizenga, 74.

[10] “In effect, Hays’s approach does not thus fully consider the possibility that an allusion to an Old Testament text could be an allusion to a radical interpretation thereof. This is problematic, for the semiotic matrix within which the New Testament writers lived and moved and had their being was not merely Scripture qua Scripture, but rather the entire cultural encyclopedia of early Judaism in all its diversity, within which Old Testament Scripture was interpreted.” Ibid., 61.

[11] Ibid., 63-65.

[12] Peter Leithart, Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009).

[13] Leithart believes the phrase intertextuality (as it is often used in the context of Biblical Studies is too limited). “It is confusing to describe a poet’s evocation of, say, the Second Battle of the Marne as a piece of ‘intertextuality’ if the reference is to extra-textual experience.” Leithart prefers to speak of ‘porous texts’ or ‘permeable texts.’ Leithart, “I Don’t Get It,” 414.

[14] A more academic version of Leithart’s Deep Exegesis chapter on intertextuality can be found his article in the Scottish Journal of Theology already quoted from: Peter Leithart, “I Don’t Get It,” 412-425.

[15] Leithart, Deep Exegesis,133. See examples of this statement in Leithart, Deep Exegesis, 113-115.

[16] Ibid., 119.

[17] Ibid., 132.

[18] Ibid., 133.

[19] Ibid., 134.

[20] This is Hays’ seventh criteria, see Hays, Echoes, 31-32.

[21] Leithart, Deep Exegesis, 112.

[22] For more on how Leithart understands these three criteria see Ibid., 137.

[23] Ibid., 138.

[24] Oren Martin, “An Evaluation and Critique of Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture,” Unpublished Paper.

[25] Leithart, Deep Exegesis, 138-139.

Intertextuality in Biblical Studies Part 5 - Greg Beale and Christopher Beetham

2010-11-18T08:11:00.000-08:00

Greg Beale and Christopher Beetham

Perhaps the most well-known conservative Evangelical contributor to the intertextuality discussion is Greg Beale. Beale has produced a number of respected monographs both explaining and demonstrating his approach to an intertextual reading of Scripture.[1] I have also chosen to include in this section an analysis of the works of Christopher Beetham alongside those of G.K. Beale. This is due to the fact that Dr. Beale served as the Doktorvater of Christopher Beetham at Wheaton. Beetham’s methodological conclusions in his dissertation Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul clearly reveal Beale’s influence and provides us with perhaps a more systematic presentation of the Beale/Beetham approach to intertextuality.

Beale shares a great deal of common ground with those examined above. When giving criteria for an echo, for example, he merely reproduces Hays seven criteria, while at the same time agreeing that intertextual reading “is not an exact science but is a kind of art.”[2] Beale likewise reiterates Hays concern for metalepsis (though he never employs the term). He quotes approvingly Hays’ proposal that one must “go back and examine the wider contexts in the scriptural precursors to understand the….effects produced by the intertextual connections.”[3]

However Beale, in accord with his strong Evangelical commitments, parts ways with those examined above by viewing the Divine Inspiration of Scripture as properly basic for the practice of reading Scripture intertextually. If the canon does not ultimately proceed from a single voice then theological formulation arising from intertextual interpretation would be impossible. Divine authorial intent provides the theological foundation for intertextual reading and Scripture and grounds the conviction that the diverse voices of Scripture can be reconciled and that Scripture can be read in light of itself.[4]

Beale also parts ways from Hays and those of his convictions by advocating a method of intertextual reading that is significantly more mechanistic and “expository” than it is artistic and “poetic.”[5] For example, Beale states, “My view is that if a later text is truly unpacking the idea of an earlier text, then the meaning developed by the later text was originally included in the ‘thick meaning’ of the earlier text.”[6] This is quite different from Hays, Thompson, and Allison who view intertexts not as expository events but as poetic ones.

Beetham continues in the more mechanistic vein of his supervisor’s intertextual reading, advocating a “strict methodology, rigorously and consistently carried out.”[7] He also attempts to improve upon Hays seven criteria by altering and restructuring the form of these tests. Thus the criteria are separated into two tiers: (1) The essential criteria[8] and (2) Confirmatory Observations.[9] While this restructuring certainly reflects careful reflection and a desire for more objective certainty, the structure itself is subjective in its divisions and it is doubtful whether this separation of “tests” into tiers adds anything new to the criteria discussion.

Further, Beetham submits that an allusion comes, “in each instance, from a single identifiable source.”[10] The result is that in an intertextual event there is a “simultaneous activiation of only two texts, that is the alluding and the alluded.[11] This is significantly more mechanistic approach to hearing the interplay of intertexts than promoted by other intertextual readers who advocate hearing intertexts (especially in Scripture) in a cave which reverberates with many vocal resonances. That is, allusions and echoes will often draw from multiple sources creating a new hybrid subtext. In other instances the subtext itself will already be a highly allusive text, re-appropriating the language of a previous document, which also may be a highly allusive document re-appropriating the language of another document, etc. Thus, even in instances where an allusion refers only to a specific text, the echoed text may already be a thick intertextual web of allusions and echoes.[12]

The methodological issues, however, run even deeper. Beetham’s brand of intertextual reading is highly restricted by an author-oriented approach,[13] as opposed to the eclectic model exemplified by Hays and Allison which makes hermeneutical room for the role of the audience, interpretive communities, and particularly the reader. This restricts Beetham’s intertextual readings to matters more historical in nature, rather than literary and theological. Beetham is primarily concerned to see that a text has influenced a later one, not how a later text refigures a former text for literary and theological purposes. Hays, for example, states that “To identify allusion is only the beginning of an interpretive process…The critical task, then would be to see what poetic effects and larger meanings are produced by the poet’s device of echoing predecessors.”[14] Beetham’s task is much more flat-footed approach to intertextual reading, a more modest and “safer” task but with significantly less interpretive dividends.[15]

[1] G.K Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson, vol. 17 (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). G.K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008). G.K. Beale, ed., The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, eds., The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

[2] Beale, We Become What We Worship, 24-25.

[3] Ibid., 28 quoting Hays, Conversion, 2.

[4] Beale, Idolatry, 27.

[5] To echo the words of Hollander quoted above.

[6] Ibid., 26.

[7] Christopher Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 12.

[8] (1) Availability, (2) Word Agreement or Rare Concept Similarity, and (3) Essential Interpretive Link. Ibid., 28-32.

[9] (1) Scholarly Assessment, (2) Old testament and Jewish Interpretive Tradition, (3) Other Verified References from the same OT Context in the Letter, (4) Occurrence Elsewhere in the Corpus of the Author, (5) Thematic Coherence. Ibid., 32-34.

[10] Ibid., 18.

[11] Ibid. Emphasis mine.

[12] W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Mattew 19-28, International Critical Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 1997), 568-569. R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 2007), 1042-1045. Jonathan Pennington, Review of Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, by Christopher Beetham. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 1 (2010).

[13] Beetham, 13-14.

[14] Hays, Echoes, 17-18.

[15] That is not to say Beetham has no concern to move to theological reading, see for example Beetham 36-40. However, it is significantly less important in his work than in other works on intertextuality.

Intertextuality in Biblical Studies Part 4 - Dale Allison

2010-11-17T13:48:00.000-08:00

Dale Allison

One of the most prolific scholars in New Testament studies, Dale Allison, has also thrown his hat into the ring of intertextual debate. Aside from Allison’s own skills as an unremittingly clear and rhetorically forceful author, Allison brings little new to the table in matters of methodology and intertextual theory. Like Hays and Thompson before him, Allison discusses the nature of allusive documents, the relative volume of an intertexts voice in a text (quotation, allusion, echo), and provides six criteria for discerning the presence of an intertext, all of which are very similar to Hays’ own criteria.[1] Similar to Hays and Thompson, Allison likewise concludes his discussion of methodology by reminding the reader that “subjectivity cannot be avoided. There is no ‘scientific method of determining allusions.’ The best reader is not one who mechanically or dogmatically observes indices, but one who has gained an instinct of artistry.”[2]

Yet while Allison provides little by way of development regarding the method or more “scientific” aspects of intertextual reading his works do clarify and powerfully illustrate[3] the function, rhetorical impact, and “meaning(s)” of intertexts. He also elucidates the role of the reader in intertextual reading and how the presence of the intertext demands contribution from the author. For example, in the following quotation Allison powerfully explains what it means for an intertext to be “inherently poetic, rather than expository,”[4] thus demanding the reader to seek “deeper” meanings.

“Allusions, which give us more to do and so heighten our attention, invite informed imaginations to make their own contributions. Meaning is infolded not to obscure but to improve communication. The implicit allows the pleasure of discovery, and readers who are invited to fill gaps appreciate authors who respect them enough not to shout.[5]

Further, Allison also helps us situate the intertextuality discussion within the context of the history of interpretation in Biblical studies. The reader is warned against modern critical reading procedures which “bias against the implicit and the subtle.”[6] He believes that the modern hermeneutical turn has created a swathe of Biblical interpreters that have been unsuccessful, perhaps even unwilling, to think outside of their own century. This hermeneutical obscurantism has blinded much of modern Biblical scholarship to the insight of pre-modern exegetes.

Enter current intertextual hermeneutical theory. Allison reminds us that reading the Bible intertextually is nothing novel at all, but instead the recovery of a widespread practice in the early church. Thus, Allison argues that if we are to become better intertextual readers we may only move forward by first going backwards.[7] Of course, Allison does not desire to “exalt the past uncritically.”[8] He is only seeking to challenge Modern skepticism’s almost allergic aversion to pre-modern exegetes, a necessary challenge as he see it if we are to be good intertextual readers. As Allison states, “I have come to believe that if we find in…[a] New Testament book an allusion to the Old Testament that the Fathers did not find, the burden of proof is on us; and if they detected an allusion which modern commentators have not detected, investigation is in order.”[9]

[1] Dale Allison, The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 11-13.

[2]Ibid., 13.

[3] See for example Allison’s analysis of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech “I Have a Dream” in Intertextual Jesus, 1-2.

[4] Hollander, 9.

[5] Dale Allison, Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 76. For More on how Allison answers the “Locus of the Echo” question and the role of the reader see Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 16-17.

[6] Allison, Intertextual, 14.

[7] Allison, Studies, 131.

[8] Ibid., Studies, 130. Anyone familiar with Allison’s works will know that he appropriates critical and post-critical practices in his reading of Scripture.

[9] Ibid., Studies,119. Allison’s own readings provide significant examples of exactly what type of literary and theological movements one hopes to accomplish in reading Scripture intertextually. See the New Moses, Studies 65-78,117-131.

Intertextuality in Biblical Studies Part 3 - Michael Thompson

2010-11-16T16:23:00.000-08:00

Michael Thompson

Michael Thompson’s Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13 has been a seminal and well-received work regarding the controversial issue of the epistolary use of the Jesus traditions. He makes his mark in the intertextual discussion primarily by advancing the discussion criteria used for discoverning an intertext. Due to the highly controversial nature of his topic[1] Thompson exerts a higher degree of precision than does Hays when thinking through “tests” for intertextuality and how best to argue for the plausibility of an intertext’s presence. Thus Thompson radically expands Hays’ seven tests for hearing an echo from seven to eleven.

(1)Verbal Agreement, (2)Conceptual agreement, (3) Formal agreement, (4) Place of the Gospel saying in the tradition, (5)Common motivation, rationale, (6) Dissimilarity to Graeco-Roman and Jewish traditions, (7) Presence of dominical indicators, (8) Presence of tradition indicators, (9) Presence of other dominical echoes or word/concept clusters in the immediate context, (10) Likelihood the author knew the saying, (11) Exegetical Value.[2]

Some of these criteria (such as number four) relate specifically to Thompson’s concern for discovering the Jesus Traditions in the epistles but there are nonetheless broader principles which could be abstracted from these criteria and applied to the intertextuality discussion at large.

It may appear that Thompson has merely provided another general list of tests for hearing an echo similar to but slightly different from his predecessor Hays. However, Thompson’s list makes a significant contribution to the criteria discussion. His tests for discerning an echo is significantly more complex than the criteria of Hays. This is not merely because Thompson provides a longer list of tests (eleven as opposed to seven) but also because each criteria is followed with sophisticated literary questions that one ought to ask of the text. The details of these explanatory comments go beyond the limits of this paper. In brief, however, Thompson encourages the reader to look for literary clues surrounding the potential intertext which may tip us off to its presence but might not be, necessarily, part and parcel of the intertext itself. This sensitivity toward structure, noticeable grammatical and syntactical signs heretofore uncharacteristic of the author, changes of style or the sudden presence of artistic literary structures (chiasms, parallels, etc), irregular combination of concepts, and other sophisticated textual concerns bring a weightiness to Thompson’s criteria. Those looking to argue for the plausibility of an intertext will find a more sophisticated set of “objective” tests in Thompson’s contribution. However, Thompson, like Hays before him recognizes that “criteria such as these cannot be expected to prove dependence in a mathematical way…Their value lies in assisting the judgment of relative probability.”[3]

[1] Hays himself, for example is resistant to the idea that there are Jesus traditions in the epistles. See Hays, Echoes 30.

[2] Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13 (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 31-36.

[3] Ibid., 36.

Intertextuality in Biblical Studies Part 2 - Richard Hays

2010-11-15T09:55:00.000-08:00

Richard Hays

Richard Hays’ Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (to try my hand at echoing the words of another famous reviewer) dropped like a bombshell on the playground of Biblical interpreters. It has proved itself to be the seminal work in the discussion of intertextual reading of Scripture and continues to demand the attention of any who wish to seriously write about intertextuality in Scripture[1] or the more narrow and perhaps slightly misguided discussion regarding the New Testament use of the Old Testament.[2]

Hays notes that prior to the publication of his 1989 monograph questions regarding Paul’s use of Scripture (or Pauline exegesis) had come to a “dead end”[3] in historical-critical inquiry.[4] The one attempt that had been made to salvage studies of Pauline exegesis came from a school of interpreters who believed the key to at the historical background of Pauline hermeneutics was in to be found in Rabbinic Midrash. Hays dismantles the midrashic explanation of Pauline exegesis demonstrating that it provides no actual solutions to the question of how Paul uses Scripture.[5]

Hays thus self-consciously submits his monograph into the fray of inadequate answers as a corrective. He states that the letters of Paul can be “illuminated” if we apply to Paul’s letters “certain approaches to intertextuality that have developed within literary criticism.” [6] One specific approach to intertextuality comes from John Hollander’s highly influential work The Figure of Echo.[7] Hays specifically calls the reader to Hollander’s focus, “neither on the poet’s psyche nor on the historical presuppositions of poetic allusions but on their rhetorical and semantic effects.”[8] These semantic effects are uncovered not only by analyzing how text relates to subtext but also how text relates to subcontext. That is to say, a metaleptic reading will creatively explore the original contexts of the allusion and echoes evoked by a text. In the words of Hays;

[A text may] allude to an earlier text in a way that evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited. The result is that the interpretation of [a text] requires the reader to recover unstated or suppressed correspondences between the two texts…[this means] we must go back and examine the wider contexts in scriptural precursors to understand the figurative effects produced by the intertextual connections.[9]

Thus intertextual reading must not be merely scientific analysis of asking from whom did Paul borrow from and why, but also the goal of the intertextual reader is to feel the rhetorical punch of the meaning-effects produced by the interplay between text and subtext.[10] The production of these meanings in the play of intertexts cannot be grasped merely by placing a text in a mechanistic hermeneutical sausage-maker, cranking the handle of scientific “hermeneutical method,” and having a nicely compacted, hermetically sealed meaning-link come out the other end. Instead intertexts are not discovered by mere method, but only by those “with ears to hear.”[11] As Hays himself says, his aim is not merely to “apply” Hollander’s method; “It is less a matter of method than of sensibility…We should learn from Hollander and other literary critics the discipline of tuning our ears to the internal resonances of the biblical text.”[12]

Significant questions, however, are raised by metaleptic reading; questions Hays is fully aware of. If the task of intertextual reading requires uncovering unstated correspondences between texts, then what boundaries (if any) are placed on the interpretive imagination? In other words, “does the legitimacy of my reading depend on its correspondence to [the author’s] intention?” Or as Hays states elsewhere, “when we begin to speak of metaleptic effects that require the reader to uncover suppressed intertextual connections, ‘we must always wonder what our own contribution was—how much we are always being writers as well as readers of what we are seeing?’”[13] What Hays is wrestling with is the “messiness” of intertextual reading. If an intertext necessarily transumes correspondences between two or more texts then this suppression of correspondences demands recovery[14] and creative development; development that the text in and of itself is insufficient to accomplish. These transumed correspondences or “meanings” seem only to find their voice as the text interacts with the reader.

The question could be stated thus: “If echo is a metaphorical way of talking about a hermeutical event, an intertextual fusion that generates new meaning, in whose mind does that event occur?”[15] Hays proposes five possible answers. The hermeneutical event occurs; (1) in the author’s mind, (2) in the original readers [audience] of the letter, (3) in the text itself, (4) in my act of reading, or (5) in a community of interpretation.[16] Ultimately, Hays accents the role of the reader by affirming that “the hermeneutical event occurs in my reading of the text”[17] but he consistently avoids an approach to intertextual reading that is strictly author-oriented, audience-oriented, or reader-oriented. Instead he states that his aim is to hold all of these loci in “creative tension.”[18]

Additionally, Hays recognizes that while it is one thing to tune our ear to hear the subtle echoes resonate in the cave of the text, it is quite another thing to be able to explain why exactly you hear a particular text echoing in the cave of another. Thus, though discovering intertexts is an art develop by sophisticated readers there must also be a sense in which criteria can be employed in arguing for plausibility of the presence of an intertext. Hays rightly notes that “precision in such judgment calls is unattainable, because exegesis is a modest imaginative craft, not an exact science; still, it is possible to specify certain rules of thumb that might help the craftsman decide whether to treat a particular phrase as an echo.”[19] Desiring, then, to provide some standards to argue for plausibility in interpretation Hays provides what have now become seven well known “tests” for hearing an echo.

(1) Availability. Was the proposed source of the echo available to the author and/or original readers?...(2) Volume. The volume of an echo is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns, but other facts may also be relevant: how distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within Scripture, and how much rhetorical stress does the echo receive in Paul’s discourse?...(3)Recurrence How often does Paul elsewhere cite or allude to the same Scriptural passage?...(4)Thematic Coherence. How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing?...(5) Historical Plausibility. Could Paul have intended the alleged meaning effect? Could his readers have understood it?...(6) History of Interpretation. Have other readers,, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes? (7) Satisfaction. With our without clear confirmation from the other criteria listed here, does the proposed reading make sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse?

In 2005, Hays published a second volume on hermeneutics defending, clarifying, and providing examples of the model of intertextual reading he advocated in Echoes. This helpful second volume solidified what Hays is and is not advocating in reading Scripture, though his convictions in Conversion are ultimately the same as they are in Echoes.[20] Conversion also represents Hays’ seasoned, mature reflection on intertextual reading and aims at pushing the reader beyond mere literary criticism for its own sake. Instead, the aim of the work “is to discover a way of reading that summons the reader to an epistemological transformation,”[21] transformation that ultimately results in a “hermeneutic of trust.”[22]

[1] So important is this work of Hays that later works on intertextuality in the field of Biblical Studies have intentionally mimicked his title as a sign of both homage and dependence, See for example, Christopher Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 23.

[2] Due to the overwhelming importance of Hays work in the intertextuality discussion I will give more space to an analysis of his work than other authors included in this paper. Hays’ work will also serve as the reference point when I analyze other authors. This will help both myself and the reader compare and contrast competing voices in this hermeneutical discussion without trying to compare each participating voice to everyone else in the conversation.

[3] Hays, Echoes, 9.

[4] Hays identifies five primary categories of inquiry that ruled academic analysis of Pauline exegesis; (1) Questions of textual criticism, (2) Questions of incidence of citation, (3) Questions of sources and historical background, (4) Questions of theological legitimacy, (5) questions of Biblical inspiration and authority. For more see Hays, Echoes 9-10.

[5] Ibid., 13-14.

[6] Ibid., 15.

[7] John Hollander, The Figure of an Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

[8] Hays, Echoes, 19.

[9] Richard Hays, Conversion of the Imagination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 2-3.

[10] That is to say the interpreter is “trying to understand the way in which an author (Paul) creates meaning effects in a text through artful reminiscences of another text well-known to the community.” Hays, Conversion, 30-31.

[11] Hays, Echoes, 19.

[12] Ibid., 21.

[13] Ibid., 25.

[14] I borrow this term from Hollander, 115.

[15] Ibid., 26.

[16] Ibid., 26-27.

[17] Ibid., 28.

[18] Ibid., 27. Hays summarizes this creative tension as follows: “The hermeneutical event occurs in my reading or the text, but my reading always proceeds within a community of interpretation, who hermeneutical conventions inform my reading. Prominent among these conventions are the convictions that a proposed interpretation must be justified with reference to evidence provided both by the text’s rhetorical structure and by what can be known through critical investigation about the author and original readers. Any interpretation must respect these constraints in order to be persuasive within my reading community. Claims about intertextual meaning effects are strongest where it can credibly be demonstrated that they occur within the literary structure of the text and that they can plausibly be ascribed to the intention of the author and the competence of the original readers.” Hays, Echoes, 28.

[19] Ibid., 29. Hays again emphasizes the artistry in Conversion, 30.

[20] Hays, Conversion, viii-xvii.

[21] Ibid., x.

[22] Ibid., 190-201.

Intertextuality in Biblical Studies Part 1

2010-11-15T06:37:00.000-08:00

I'm going to be posting an unedited version of my intertextuality paper piece by piece over the next few days. Comments would be appreciated.

Introduction

In the world of Biblical hermeneutics “intertextuality” has become a subject of great interest among Biblical interpreters. This development is no doubt due in part to the tectonic shifts in literary and narrative criticism that have taken place over the past 40 years. As we shall see below there are literally dozens of articles and books merely from the key contributors to the conversation, let alone the hundreds of other dissertations, articles, and monographs which have been published by members of the academic guild and their students. In Biblical studies a renewed respect for pre-modern interpreters,[1] disenchantment with modern historical-critical hermeneutics, as well as an appropriation of helpful insights of post-modern literary theory has driven Scripture’s interpreters away from historical reconstruction to seek after more canonical and theological readings of the Text.

Intertextuality is a literary phenomenon in which the fragments of an earlier text are embedded within a later one.[2] The presence of this embedded text exists along a spectrum from the glaringly obvious quotation to the more subtle literary technique of allusion to the faint literary echo perhaps unintended by the author and only discernable to the ear of the most sophisticated readers. Though most agree that the phenomenon of intertextuality exists, there still remains a great deal of debate regarding the locus of intertextual event, its purpose, meaning-effect, the criteria used to discern the presence of intertexts (if in fact there are any) and the theological value of intertextuality in Scripture. This paper will focus on taxonomizing and comparing what the major voices in this discussion have offered as a solution to the various interpretive questions regarding an intertextual reading of Scripture followed by a brief proposal of where the hermeneutical discussion needs to go from here.[3]

[1] See for example Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). John J. O’Keefe and R.R. Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005). Robert Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Daniel Trier, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis? Sic et Non,” Trinity Journal 24 (2003): 77-103. Mark Husbands and Jefferey P. Greenman, eds., Ancient Faith for the Church’s Future (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008).

[2] Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 14.

[3] The reader should note my cautious and intentional qualification subtly included in the title of this paper, “Intertextuality in Biblical Studies.” Thus in this paper I have no intention to examine the much broader discussion about intertextuality taking place among literary critics such as Kristeva, Barthes, Derrida, and Culler (as important and as interested in this conversation as I may be). The voices in this literary conversation are not discussing intertextuality as a textual phenomenon to be considered for its rhetorical, poetic, literary, and (in the case of Biblical Studies) theological value. Instead they discuss the merits (or demerits) or intertextuality as “a radical critique of supposedly traditional understandings of textuality and interpretation, decentering the text, challenging its autonomy, self-consistency and self-presence and deconstructing the ‘illusion’ of fixity.” Peter Leithart, “I Don’t Get It: Humour and Hermeneutics,” Scottish Journal of Theology 60, no. 4 (2007): 417.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-11-10T10:57:00.000-08:00

Ethics for a Brave New World by John Feinberg and Paul Feinberg

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-10-30T14:02:00.001-07:00

Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith by Ronald Nash

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-10-18T17:16:00.001-07:00

Life's Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy by Ronald Nash

Twitter Typology

2010-10-04T19:13:00.000-07:00

I'm contributing to a new twitter account called EyestoSeeHim. The account is dedicated to posting figural/typological/intertextual/Christological readings of Scripture in 140 characters or less. Make sure you subscribe!

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-10-04T07:57:00.001-07:00

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-09-25T12:30:00.000-07:00

Solomon Among the Postmoderns by Peter Leithart

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-09-14T17:53:00.001-07:00

Words of Life by Timothy Ward

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-09-14T17:52:00.001-07:00

The Universe Next Door by James Sire

On Reading

2010-08-12T03:35:00.000-07:00

Some folks here at SBTS have started a blog called "Pilgrim's Ponderings" and have asked me to contribute to it. Here is the first post I wrote for them.

On Reading

“Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Ecc. 12:12). For Bibliophiles and Academoholics, the words of “The Preacher” of Ecclesiastes is all too familiar. As wonderful and recreational as reading may be, the task of reading well is laborious. Of course, I have no expertise on the subject of reading (at 23 I don’t think I qualify for expertise in anything) but I have tried to reflect on the reading enterprise in order to maximize my effectiveness. Here are some brief thoughts you might find helpful.

1) Don’t just read for information. Read with an eye to the beauty of literature and language. Many of us have developed the wicked habit of reading in such a way as if we are cramming for a test, concerned more about what is being said than how it is being said. We live in culture that confuses knowledge as facts, wisdom as information, sapientia as scientia. Take a more holistic approach to reading. Words are interesting, so are sentences. Some words roll out of your mouth, others make it feel like a wood chipper. Grammar is not merely a tool of communication but possesses a certain aesthetic quality. Read like someone who enjoys reading for reading’s sake.

2) Read Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book and James Sire’s How to Read Slowly. In an age of perpetual impatience Adler and Sire remind us that the reading enterprise is much slower than we would like it to be…And that’s OK! In fact, that might just be the point.

3) Don’t be discouraged you’re not a “fast reader.” Again, the point of reading is not necessarily to fill your mind with as many facts as is humanly possible. Reading well is like having a conversation. It takes time, an open ear, pauses for reflection. The author is engaging you in dialogue and wants you as the reader to be active in the conversation. Nobody feels fulfilled at the end of the day because they had “a lot of conversations,” typically we feel great because we spent the day having “great conversations.”

4) Don’t be discouraged that you don’t remember everything you read. Doug Wilson has some wonderful words of wisdom on this topic: ” If you try to wring every book out like it was a washcloth full of information, all you will do is slow yourself down to a useless pace. Go for total tonnage, and read like someone who will forget most of it. You have my permission to forget most of it, which may or may not be reassuring, but you will forget most of it in either case. Most of what is shaping you in the course of your reading, you will not be able to remember. The most formative years of my life were the first five, and if those years were to be evaluated on the basis of my ability to pass a test on them, the conclusion would be that nothing important happened then, which would be false. The fact that you can’t remember things doesn’t mean that you haven’t been shaped by them.

At the same time, mark everything striking that you read — you won’t remember everything you read, and you won’t even remember everything you mark. Nevertheless, it is not a sin to remember some things, or to mark them in a way to be able to find them again.”

Likewise John Piper ha some helpful words on the topic, “What I have learned from about twenty-years of serious reading is this. It is sentences that change my life, not books. What changes my life is some new glimpse of truth, some powerful challenge, some resolution to a long-standing dilemma, and these usually come concentrated in a sentence or two. I do not remember 99% of what I read, but if the 1% of each book or article I do remember is a life-changing insight, then I don’t begrudge the 99%.”

5) Read with varying levels of intentionality and intensity. Not all books are worth reading, nor are most books worth reading well. Read a lot of books quickly. Read at different paces and with different purposes according to your interest in the book and the importance of the book. Trying to master everything is silly. Read some books to become familiar with their contents. Aim at mastering a few of them.

6) Read through the centuries. C.S. Lewis masterfully warned us against chronological snobbery in his excellent essay “On the Reading of Old Books.” Be intentional about reading in each century. Remember chronological snobbery works both ways! Just as new books aren’t necessarily better than old ones, neither are old books necessarily better than new ones. Learn from the wisdom of every age.

7) Read outside of your own (theological) community. If you’re library is made up of books that have been released by the same two or three publishers then chances are that you are a “comfortable” reader, refusing to step outside the boundaries of your (theological) community. This makes you, as a reader, incredibly parochial. Read outside your community, you’ll be surprised at how much people you disagree with have to teach you.

8) Have a reading plan. Create a reading plan with categories of books that suit your interests and personality. Don’t make it a law, but use it as a guide for wise stewardship of your reading resources. Here is my personal list of book-categories I try to work through.

Free Book
Old Testament
New Testament
Synoptic Gospels
Gospel of Matthew
Hermeneutics
Theology
History
Great Literature
New Release/Hot Topic Book
Dissertation
Greek/Hebrew Grammar
Book I will probably disagree with
Book written between 1 AD - 500 AD
Book written between 500 AD - 1500 AD
Book written between 1500 AD - 1700 AD
Book written between 1700 AD - Present

9) Aim at reading the best books. We only have so much time to read. Use it wisely.

Leithart's Deep Exegesis Part 7 (Final)

2010-08-03T08:17:00.000-07:00

Modern hermeneutics has often aspired to a kind of scientific objectivity in interpretation, one that goes along with the obsession with method. If interpretation is a scientific or quasi-scientific enterprise, it does not depend on any character development or religious commitment in the interpreter. A Muslim can plug the numbers into the calculator as well as a Christian and get the same result. A pedophile can run the same experiment as the purest virgin, and both will reach the same conclusion. If interpretation is more like getting a joke than it is like dissecting a frog, then only certain kinds of people will be good interpreters. If texts are jokes, no strictly procedural hermeneutics will do. Rather, a "humorneutical" approach emphasizes instead the character of the interpreter. What, after all, can one do with someone who has no sense of humor? Analysis and teaching might improve things marginally, but that person's main problem is not a technical but a spiritual one: somebody without a sense of humor suffers from a contracted soul, and the only real solution is conversion. Interpretive skills can be taught and improved, but only the glad of heart make good readers (139).

Leithart's Deep Exegesis Part 6

2010-08-03T07:14:00.000-07:00

For interpreters of Scripture, as Augustine and Origen knew, this means that a good interpreter will have a wide range of knowledge at hand--knowledge about history and geography, about the languages of Scripture, about the flora and fauna to which the Bible makes reference. Above all, the good interpreter of Scripture must have Scripture at his fingertips, because Scripture itself provides the first context for interpreting any particular portion of Scripture. Though 1-2 Samuel is an ancient text that needs to be understood in the context of the ancient world, it is fundamentally a scriptural text that must be interpreted in the light of the Pentateuch, the history of the monarchy, the exile and return, and the culmination of Israel's history in Jesus.

There is no foolproof method for achieving such mastery of Scripture. Patristic commentators had Scripture at their fingertips because they read and copied Scripture; they heard it read; they chanted the Psalms and many had the Psalter memorized; they ate, drank, and breathed Scripture. And as a result, any single Scripture was not a single Scripture but brought a dozen other Scriptures immediately to mind. Method is a way of making up for the failure to master Scripture (138).

Leithart's Deep Exegesis Part 5

2010-07-24T20:01:00.000-07:00

Even the most rigorously grammatical and historical exegesis of the Bible depends on connections between text and text, or text and speech, or text and extratextual reality. When a New testament scholar plunders papyri to discover how a particular Pauline word was commonly deployed in the first century, he is seeking relevant information outside of Paul's text. Were one to ask, he would insist that this external information is indispensable to unraveling the meaning of Paul's letter. And it may well be. Historical information works the same way. When an Old Testament exegete tries to illuminate the brief account of Sennacherib's retreat from Jerusalem (2 Kin. 19:35-37) by poring over Assyrian texts, he is bringing extratextual information to bear on his text, in the hopes that the text will become clearer by reading it alongside relevant information that is not in it...

In other words, even the most rigorously exegetical readers are eisegetical, or might be called so by someone more rigorously exegetical than thou. Everyone brings information to the text that is not in the text, and seeks to illuminate the text with light from outside. They fill in the gaps between words and sentences to produce a whole picture. That is perfectly fine and, I have been arguing, inescapable. What is not fine is the pretense that literal reading does not involve this process, the claim that a reading is doing nothing but getting what is there (116-117).

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-07-24T17:08:00.001-07:00

Ancient Word, Changing Worlds by Stephen Nichols

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-07-19T16:21:00.000-07:00

Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture by Peter Leithart

Awesome! Awesome! Awesome book! Definitely worth the price and the time!

Leithart's Deep Exegesis Part 4

2010-07-14T18:59:00.000-07:00

God in His Infinite wisdom decided to give us a book, a very long book, and not a portrait or an aphorism. God reveals himself in his image, Jesus, but we come to know that image by reading, and that takes time. God wants to transform us into the image of his image, and one of the key ways he does that is by leading us through the text. If we short-circuit that process by getting to the practical application, we are not going to be transformed in the ways God wants us to be transformed. "Get to the point" will not do because part of the point is to lead us through the labyrinth of the text itself. There is treasure at the center of the labyrinth, but with texts, the journey really is as important as the destination. "Get to the point, man" is the slogan of the liberal theologian; it is a demand for the kernel without the annoying distraction of the husky twists and turns of the text itself (55).

A Hiatus

2010-07-14T03:35:00.000-07:00

Things have been quiet on the blog front lately. That's because this week is Vacation Bible School at Calvary Baptist Church in Seymour, IN. To say the least I am wiped out. However, I fully intend on picking back up soon with some articles on Psalm 87, the book of Matthew, and also continuing the Deep Exegesis "great quotes" series.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-07-13T13:35:00.001-07:00

A Pastor's Sketches: Conversations with Anxious Souls Concerning the Way of Salvation by Ichabod Spencer

Leithart's Deep Exegesis Part 3

2010-07-06T18:14:00.000-07:00

First, the time of reading makes meaning, and because it takes place over time, meaning changes as I go. As I read, the event of reading chapter 1 is brought into relation to the later events of reading chapters 2 and 5 and 8, and what happened as I read chapter 1 changes in the light of those later events. Chapter 1 takes on new properties and meanings as I progress. It takes on at least the property of being the beginning of the story that continues into the later chapters. Or we can put it this way: the events that the text records change as we read. The weak form of this thesis is that we do not full know what happened in chapter 1 until we get to the later chapters; the strong form is that the events of chapter 1 are themselves different events once the events of chapters 2 and 5 and 8 occur (in the narrative, in our reading of the narrative). Either version is strong enough to support typological reading (51).

Leithart's Deep Exegesis Part 2

2010-07-06T18:09:00.000-07:00

Readers Cannot shed their own prejudices, strip off the clothing of intervening history, and embrace the author naked (49).

That is a well-written sentence!

Lethart's Deep Exegesis Part 1

2010-07-05T05:23:00.000-07:00

I've been reading Peter Leithart's Deep Exegesis and am finding it incredibly thought-provoking. I hope to post selections from the book as I continue to read through it.

Longenecker places us squarely in the husk/kernel hermeneutics of modern liberal theology, at a somewhat different level. He certainly wants us to acknowledge Paul's theology, and to do theology in the way Paul did. He certainly thinks that Paul had every right to argue the way he did. he wants us to draw the same conclusions Paul drew from the gospel, and to affirm that we are reconciled to God by the grace of Christ through faith. But Longenecker does not always want us to follow the reasoning Paul used to draw those conclusions. We are supposed to follow Pauline doctrine, but not Pauline exegesis. The kernel of doctrine is detached from the husk of Paul's puzzling and odd, if entertaining, rhetoric and dialectic. We are to follow Paul's doctrine, and in the few instances where he shows us the pathway to the doctrine we can follow his path. We are not, however, suppose to use the same path elsewhere. Paul may teach us how to read certain texts, but Paul is not supposed to teach us how to read. (33-34).

Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew - Book Review

2010-07-04T18:17:00.000-07:00

Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew,
Jonathan T. Pennignton
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 399pp,
reviewed by Samuel C. Emadi

Introduction

In an era when many academic publications do not deliver on their promise to contribute something both substantial and original to the playground of theological discussion, Jonathan Pennington’s Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew is a breath of fresh air. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew is an exhaustive examination of what Pennington terms Matthew’s “Idiolectic way of using the language of heaven” (6). Flowing from meticulous research, Pennington concludes with four primary theses regarding Matthean phraseology; “1) an intentional distinction in meaning between the singular and plural forms of οὐρανὸς; 2) the frequent use of the heaven and earth word-pair as a theme; 3) regular reference to the Father in heaven; and 4) the recurrent use of the uniquely Matthean expression, ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν” (7). Pennington also promises that these theses are not merely historical curiosities but that large theological dividends will repay the reader who exhibits careful attention to this “heaven and earth” theme in Matthew.

The book is divided into two parts. Part one, entitled “Clearing Ground and Building Anew,” sets the stage of controversy delineating the faulty assumptions in much of Matthean scholarship and the relevant lexical data needed to undergird the rest of the book. In Chapter 1, Pennington challenges the widespread belief that Matthew uses “heaven” periphrastically in order to avoid the Divine name and by implication offend his Jewish audience. This argument, which the author helpfully designates “reverential circumlocution,” is then surprisingly identified as having originated from a single source; Gustaf Dalman. Pennington spends over 20 pages critiquing Dalman’s argument and showing the deleterious effect his unsubstantiated treatment of οὐρανὸς and ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν has had in Matthean studies. The chapter concludes its tilling of exegetical weeds by asserting that “heaven” need not be identified as reverential circumlocution but instead as metonymy used by Matthew to serve a “rhetorical and theological purpose,” namely “to contrast heaven (God’s realm) with earth (humanity’s realm)” (36).
Chapters 2 and 3 survey the relevant lexical data of “heaven” in the Old Testament, Second Temple Literature, and the Gospel of Matthew itself. The all too brief Chapter 4 changes directions and serves a “cash-value” role in the book as Pennington demonstrates how Matthew’s “heaven and earth” theme both informs and interacts with other theological themes woven throughout the Gospel. These themes are identified as; “(1) Matthew’s Sitz im Leben; (2) Christology; (3) Kingdom; (4) The Fatherhood of God; (5) Fulfillment of the Old Testament/Old Covenant; (6) The New People of God and Ecclesiology; (7) Eschatology and Apocalyptic” (78).

Part Two of the book, entitled “Matthew’s Idiolectic Use of Heaven Language and the Theme of Heaven and Earth” comprises eight chapters coupled into four pairs along with a concluding chapter. Each chapter-pair analyzes, defends, and articulates the theological relevance of Pennington’s four primary theses (stated above). Thus chapters 5 and 6 treat οὐρανὸς and οὐρανοὶ in the Septuagint/Second Temple Literature and in the Gospel of Matthew respectively. Chapters 7 and 8 treat the “heaven and earth” pair in the Old Testament/Second Temple Literature and in Matthew. Chapters 9 and 10 analyze God as Father following the same pattern as do chapters 11 and 12 which focus on the phrase Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven.

οὐρανὸς and οὐρανοὶ

As almost all readers of Greek Matthew are aware “one of the most unusual things about Matthew’s usage of οὐρανὸς is his uncommon employment of the plural.” (70) In fact, Matthew uses the plural οὐρανοὶ. or one of its oblique cases 20 more times than the rest of the New Testament combined (125). Pennington’s detailed research challenges the typical explanations that Matthew’s use of the plural is a product either of the influence of Semitic morphology (i.e. the influence of the plural lexeme שָׁמַיִם) or that it stems from a multiple heavens cosmology. Instead “Matthew generally uses οὐρανὸς in the singular to refer to the visible (earthly) world or in ‘heaven and earth’ pairs, and he uses the plural to refer to the invisible (divine) realm” (132). Yet far from leaving the reader with an interesting discussion of Matthew’s idiolectic use of singular and plural forms of οὐρανὸς Pennington demonstrates the exegetical value of this distinction by examining Matthew 6:9-10 and 24:29-31 and brings a greater level of clarity to each of these texts.

Heaven and Earth

Also part of Matthew’s idiolectic use of “heaven” is his employment of the “heaven and earth” pair. Pennington carefully examines the Old Testament context of this pair and identifies two primary meanings: merismatic (expressing totality) and antithetical (expressing contrast). Matthew’s use of the “heaven and earth” pair (and his penchant for the antithetical use of the phrase) grows out of this fertile Old Testament soil. Pennington helps us see that Matthew not only adopted the phraseology itself, but has interwoven the “theme” of heaven and earth throughout his gospel, even at times merely through implication.

Again, Pennington is not willing to stop at idiolectic curiosities but demonstrates the exegetical, literary, and theological import of his argument. For example, he explains that Matthew uses the “heaven and earth” pair as an intricate part of the insider/outsider rhetoric present throughout the gospel. That is, “Matthew generally preserves direct heaven and earth language for the followers, and uses less explicit, implied pairs for others” (199). Attention to the “heaven and earth” theme also helps us see that Matthew “uses…the pair as a rubric to organize and explain this kind of dualistic thinking which is widespread throughout his Gospel” (209) A dualistic tension which ultimately has “an eschatological resolution…God’s redemptive plan in Jesus is not the removal of the earth in the sense of being replaced with a kingdom in heaven, but is instead the eschatological reuniting of the heavenly and earthly realms according to the heavenly pattern (6:9-10)” (210). Finally, Pennington wonderfully develops the Biblical-Theological emphasis of the heaven and earth theme and particularly its intertextual relationship with Genesis (most notably Gen. 1:1). Pennington sees this as a noticeable and lamentable lacuna in modern scholarship (212) and submits that sensitivity to the heaven and earth pair can help readers of Matthew begin to fill that void.

God as Father

Pennington also challenges the popular assumptions and unfounded exegetical convictions that Jesus’ use of Divine “Father” language manifests radical discontinuity with prior Judaism. Instead, he offers a much more balanced interpretation to the question of continuity demonstrating that Matthew “adopted, adapted and expanded this newer and relatively infrequent way of speaking about God, and employed it skillfully within the rest of his elaborate heaven and earth schema” (250). Throughout the gospel Matthew intimately and often links the Divine Father with an always plural form of οὐρανὸς as well as a number of explicit heaven and earth pairs. Further, one of the most interesting arguments of Heaven and Earth is that Matthew portrays human fathers (that is fathers “on earth”) in a negative light throughout the gospel in contradistinction to the heavenly Father to more forcefully portray the antithetical heaven and earth tension which only the eschaton can resolve (238-239).

Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven

The two chapters concluding the book’s argument, constituting roughly 80 pages, tackle the all-important subject of the “Kingdom.” With the same level-headedness with which the rest of the book is composed, Pennington treats many of the major questions surrounding the infamous Matthean phrase ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. In treating semantic/grammatical matters, the author advocates that βασιλεία need not refer only to God’s “rule” (as Dalman suggested) but “is a multivalent term whose semantic range at times includes spatial notions” (282). Pennington also takes a more expansive view of the meaning of the genitive τῶν οὐρανῶν arguing that “both the source and attributive genitive understandings” are being conveyed by the author (296).

Of course, the most important contribution of this section to Matthean studies is Pennington’s departure from previous scholarly treatment of ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν as reverential circumlocution. He instead posits, “Matthew, drinking deeply at the waters of Daniel, has developed his kingdom of heaven language and theme from the same motif and similar language in Daniel 2-7” (289). This relationship between Matthew and Daniel 2-7 is treated in great detail and rewards students of Biblical Theology with innumerable provocative connections between the writings of the exilic prophet and those of the gospel writer. The author’s treatment of the Matthean phrase τῶν οὐρανῶν question leaves no stoned unturned and offers satisfying responses to every possible objection (such as “Why does Matthew use “Kingdom of God” four times in his gospel?”). Ultimately the ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν phrase is part of Matthew’s idiolectic heaven language and “his choice to regularly depict the kingdom as τῶν οὐρανῶν is designed to emphasize that God’s kingdom is not like earthly kingdoms, stands over against them, and will eschatologically replace them (on earth)” (321).

Conclusion

There is no lack of commendable qualities in Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. With respect to the author’s literary style the book manifests overwhelmingly thorough argumentation and a concern for clarity. It serves as a healthy corrective to over a century of oft-repeated bad exegetical claims. The thesis not only gives us insight into Matthew’s worldview and theological emphases, but attention to the “heaven and earth” theme in Matthew also opens up new insights into the gospel writer’s literary structure (see Matt. 6:1-21). Readers interested in Scripture’s drama of salvation-history will delight to find Pennington’s work suggestive of innumerable Biblical-Theological connections, many of which have been explored only in part. Ultimately Heaven and Earth is true to its word and pays off significant theological dividends. As Pennington himself states “If one were to make a thermal map of the Gospel of Matthew, it would be clear that the hottest spots in the Gospel—i.e., those places with the greatest theological heat—all contain heaven language” (74). Matthean scholars, pastors, and advanced readers will all find Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew a wonderfully enlightening treatment of the gospel which proclaims good news to all nations under Him who has authority over heaven and earth.

The New Tolerance

2010-07-02T18:10:00.001-07:00

The following is an excerpt from my reflection paper for the Middle-East Travel Seminar. These thoughts are heavily influenced by a recent sermon I heard by D.A. Carson and his upcoming work The Intolerance of Tolerance.

No longer is the chief aim of man to “glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Instead, Christianity is being stripped of its vertical aspects which are then being replaced with more “current” or “relevant” horizontal matters. What this means, of course, is that no longer is the cardinal sin of humanity idolatry but intolerance.

Tolerance, however, has been drastically redefined and is today a very different attitude than what the word was originally intended to convey. I would argue that this redefinition of tolerance strips away its true virtue and instead leaves a mere shell of apparent humility, and in fact becomes guilty of the very intolerance it condemns. Tolerance once conveyed the following idea: I have strong convictions on a particular subject and your convictions on the same subject seem to me wrong, bad, immoral, maybe even disgusting or downright stupid, yet nonetheless I insist you have the right to believe and defend them. In other words a tolerant person is someone who retains his own convictions, thinks others who differ are wrong, but puts up with these views and respects them enough to meaningfully and respectfully interact with them.

However, after interacting with fellow students on the METS trip it seems that tolerance means something entirely different. Now tolerance is the refusal to pronounce any position “right” or “wrong,” “moral” or “immoral.” Both categories of truth (right/wrong) and morality (good/bad) are rejected only to be replaced with analyzing ideas according to degrees of “helpfulness.” While the shift seems subtle the word has in fact entirely changed its meaning. The old tolerance said “I disagree, but I tolerate and respect you.” The new tolerance says, “I agree entirely, see how tolerant I am.” Of course there is only one sin that the new tolerance despises, and that is the old tolerance. That is to say the new tolerance is entirely intolerant of all convictions or pronouncements of judgment. Our guide at the garden tomb who dared make claims of exclusivity (claims which have been part of the Christian church for 2,000 years) was deemed backwards, intolerant, and (curse of curses) pre-modern. It seems now the only heresy is the idea that there is orthodoxy. And the only orthodoxy is that there is no heresy.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-06-30T20:58:00.001-07:00

Tell the Truth by Will Metzger

Metzger's Tell the Truth is probably the best work on evangelism I've come across so far.

It's Really Not That Technical

2010-06-30T18:14:00.000-07:00

I'm a firm believer that preaching should not be drenched in theological verbiage. Otherwise we might sound like this:

The Karate Kid and the Head-Crushing Seed of the Woman

2010-06-29T15:54:00.001-07:00

Since my previous post on LOST, I’ve been in the movie analysis mood so here goes another.

This year’s remake of The Karate Kid is getting mixed reviews but overall it seems that most have left the theaters with a favorable attitude. Will I see it? I’m not going out of my way. Nothing can replace the Ralph Macchio/Pat Morita classic of the 1980’s. I have often commented that the original Karate Kid is one of the best portraits of the Gospel story line in film history. Confused? Let me run through the story.

Daniel LaRusso is the son of a single mother (he is the seed of the woman) who spends his days preparing for battle with the dojo of Cobra Kai (the seed of the serpent). Mr. Miyagi empowers Daniel for this task (imagery of the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit). Daniel enters into this tournament of life and death wearing a karate gi stamped with the image of a bonsai tree (imagery of edenic paradise and the tree of life). In the final scene Cobra Kai breaks the leg of Daniel (thus bruising his heel), but Daniel overcomes his opponent by delivering a jump-kick to his face (thus crushing the head of the seed of the serpent). Daniel’s victory comes through many hardships of training and conflict (glory comes through suffering) and, of course, he does all of this for his girlfriend Ali Mills (his bride).

Now the big question; am I serious?

Honestly…even I can’t tell anymore.

New Title, PLEASE!

2010-06-29T14:09:00.001-07:00

For the past several years I have been struggling to find just the right title/subtitle for this blog. I am not content to allow the uncreative Hebrew שְׁמוּאֵל and the notoriously lame "Meditations in Louisville, Kentucky" stay up for ever. So anyone out there willing to help me out?

Apparently Jesus Loves the Suburbs Too

2010-06-27T19:28:00.000-07:00

Mark 10:17-22

17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

HT: Matthew Emadi

The Wedding of Christ and the Work of the Trinity

2010-06-27T19:24:00.001-07:00

This morning in Calvary Baptist's youth Sunday School class I taught on the Trinity and how it relates to creation, family, government, redemption, the church and worship. I deeply resonated with the words of Augustine, "If you deny the Trinity you lose your soul, if you try to explain the Trinity you lose your mind."

The following is a gem from Pastor Arden Hodgens on the Trinity's work in redemption:

The Father chose the Bride and gave her to His Son. The Son laid down His life for the Bride, redeeming her and purchasing for her all that she needed to be His. And now the Holy Spirit is preparing the Bride to meet her Husband. He is beautifying her for the Son, and He is also working within the heart of the Bride in order that she might understand just how beautiful and wonderful the Groom really is! And one day, when the Holy Spirit quickens our mortal bodies, He will be the One, as it were, who escorts us, the Bride, down the aisle to meet our Bridegroom.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-06-24T07:46:00.000-07:00

Israel and the Nations: The History of Israel from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple by F.F. Bruce

Chiasm or Not?

2010-06-22T18:21:00.000-07:00

ESV Luke 6:42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (Luk 6:42 ESV)

BGT Luke 6:42 πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου• ἀδελφέ, ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σου, αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σου δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων; ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον τὴν δοκὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου ἐκβαλεῖν. (Luk 6:42 BGT)

It seems to me that Luke has constructed some form of grammatical chiasm in the highlighted section above.

A₁ αὐτὸς
B₁ τὴν
C₁ ἐν
D₁ τῷ
D₂ ὀφθαλμῷ
C₂ σου
B₂ δοκὸν
A₂ βλέπων

The chiasm of course seems based on case endings:

A₁ Nominative
B₁ Accusative
C₁ Preposition
D₁ Dative
D₂ Dative
C₂ Pronoun
B₂ Accusative
A₂ Nominative

Thoughts? Do you think this appears valid/intentional on the part of Luke or mere coincidence caused by the incredibly flexible nature of Greek word order?

History of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

2010-06-21T11:32:00.000-07:00

I have not yet been able to read Dr. Greg Wills recently published book on the history of Southern Seminary but this video certainly whets my appetite.

The End

2010-06-21T11:02:00.001-07:00

Finally!...A sense of relief, accomplishment, exhaustion, exhilaration, and contentment. No more exhausting late nights, no more early mornings. No more endless riddles of theology, philosophy, narrative structure, and plot development consuming my thought life. No more sleepless nights of reflection and curiosity, striving toward some answers but then only creating others. The end of another semester at Southern Seminary? Not quite...the series finale of LOST.

Of course the rest of the world saw it a month ago while I was somewhere in the sands of the middle-east, so that's why I'm sounding off with my take on the series a month late. LOST is the only television show I’ve watched in perhaps the past five years and probably the only TV series I have ever intentionally watched from start to finish (I have unintentionally seen every episode of Little House on the Prairie multiple times but that's a different story). Of course there is a reason for this. Amidst the mindless pablum of bug-eating contests and rose ceremonies, LOST was a breath of fresh air; an actual story told in a way worth watching. It refused to be dumbed-down for a television audience and was bold enough to incorporate some of the greatest philosophical questions into its story; good vs evil, fate vs Free Will, science vs faith, etc. And instead of coming down on one side of the equation and then regurgitating some ill-conceived quip of pseudo-philosophical explanation, LOST was smart enough to leave these questions open to the viewer, recognizing that for most philosophical issues the meeting place between two seeming polarities is often simply a mystery.

It also employed all the literary techniques which make for great story telling; foreshadowing, juxtaposition, longitudinal themes running through the entire series, intertextuality, what I like to call “intervisuality,” echoes, allusions, etc, etc. Furthermore historical and cultural allusions, from the Bible to the Brady Brunch, sprinkled throughout every scene made LOST all the more pleasurable a story. As Dale Allison noted these evocations are what draw readers, or in this case viewers, in: "Allusions, which give us more to do and so heighten our attention, invite informed imaginations to make their own contributions. Meaning is infolded not to obscure but to improve communication. The implicit allows the pleasure of discovery, and readers who are invited to fill gaps appreciate authors who respect them enough not to shout."

At the end of the day LOST was also just plain fun to watch. Everything from nail-biting cliff hangers (season one's concluding shot of Jack and Locke staring down the hatch), laugh-out-loud funny dialogue (Sawyer's nicknames), and tear-jerking drama (honestly, if you weren't moved when Jin and Sun died you may need to visit a cardiologist because you just might be missing a heart). Of course, it had its dull moments (Sawyer's boar-chasing episode), or episodes that were just plain bad (the episode explaining the origin of Jack's tattoo) but generally each episode only drew the viewers in closer.

The shows final denouement has been received in a variety of ways. Some loved it, many didn't, others were just indifferent. The plethora of negative reviews had me worried as I was approaching the final episode. But “The End” didn’t disappoint: I, for one, loved it. Of course it didn't answer all the questions, though I believe it answered the most important ones. But imagine the alternative. Imagine if every jot and tittle were answered. Suppose we found out it was all a dream, or the island actually was hell/purgatory and everyone was dead, or everyone was trapped in some scientific experiment, or some (pseudo)scientific explanation was given for everything happening on the island, or every question from every show in the series was answered, would that really have satisfied viewers? The story was too big for that. Filling in every plot-minutiae would have been an emotional let down, no matter how exciting the answers were.

SO…Here’s my take on what the story was all about. The island was a place of redemption, a place that made people whole (i.e. Locke, Rose, Jin and Sun, etc). In a sense, the island and the mysterious light was the source of all that was good true and beautiful in the world. Thus, it seems the island’s destruction would, in the analogy Jacob used, cause all hell to break loose. This is why it needed protecting and this is why it needed saving. Jacob’s inability to destroy the Man in Black/Smoke Monster due to the “rules” meant someone else was necessary for the task of saving the island. In the story that person is Jack Shepherd, who destroys evil and sacrifices himself to save the island. I take the flash-sideways world as a purgatorial existence where both characters and viewers realize that the death of almost every character on the show was not without purpose (a question/theme running throughout the entire series). Rather the island gave purpose to the lives of each of the characters. None of their deaths were in vain; each of them played a part in the redemption story.

Of course, like all great stories LOST echoes what every human heart craves, the Story of Stories. Jacob (the keeper of this redemptive island whose name bears a striking allusion to “Israel”) has no authority or power to overcome the evil and sin represented by the Man in Black. Instead, the island needs someone greater than Jacob, someone who in the story just happens to a physician named Shepherd with a father named Christian. Shepherd does what Jacob could not do and destroys wickedness and sin by taking the life of the Man in Black (Sorry, no crushed head in this story…though I honestly expected it to happen). Then in order to save both friends and enemies, Shepherd, with pierced side, sacrifices himself for the island, leaving behind a pair of disciples who are now going to run things in a way “better” than the old era under Jacob. Was all of this intentional? Probably not, though some of it was. But that was part of the fun of watching LOST. The producers left the text “open” and invited the readers to “fill in the gaps.”

The final episode was not without its faults of course. It was hard to overlook the Universalism shouting from the stain-glass window in the church as Jack was reunited with his father. It was also clear the producers struggled to find an emotionally and intellectually satisfying resolution to the problem of sin, as seen in their handling of Benjamin Linus. What becomes of this sometimes good, ofttimes bad, sometimes pitiable, ofttimes incorrigible, malicious, manipulative, two-face, murderer? Well...nothing really. He's merely left...waiting..."figuring things out"...outside the church. Of course, other characters had their moral failures, even egregious ones. But none of them were quite so vile as Linus. Thus, I get the sense the producers were "stuck" with what to do with Linus. To allow him in the church and thus part of the "kingdom" without any sense of justice having been served would have been an affront to the viewers moral sensibilities. Of course, to demand judgment of his sin would have been an affront to viewers' postmodern sensibilities.

But there is something else wrong with the ending. There is just something emotionally unsatisfying with the eschatological scene of contentment, relief, reunion, and nostalgia written on Jack’s face as he sits in the pew and stares in wonder toward the front of the church. Suppose the wonderful, even fulfilling, sense of nostalgia and reunion continues into eternity? What then? The human soul was created for so much more…and what is missing is worship. The type of soul-transforming, joy-overflowing, heart-bursting, shout-demanding worship that only the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ can bring. The end of “The End” was emotionally unsatisfying because the characters themselves were left ultimately unsatisfied. Only infinite glory can fill the God-shaped vacuum in the human soul.

LOST has taught us something. Our neighbors are more interested in life’s philosophical and theological questions than perhaps we have given them credit for. And they are looking for a story that solves life’s big questions, especially the two biggest questions; purpose and redemption. As Christians we have that Story. It has no faults, no holes, no disappointments. Nor is it confined to a fictitious island somewhere in the South Pacific. Our story actually happened outside Jerusalem on a very real skull-mountain, with a very real cross extracting very real blood for some very real sin…And of course three days later a very real empty tomb. It’s a Story worth listening to told in a way worth listening. And when Its final eschatological scene plays out before the world’s viewers, there won’t be any negative reviews.

On Reading and Not Remembering

2010-06-21T07:58:00.001-07:00

If you're part of the 99.7% of people who remember about .01% of what you read like I am then let these words from Doug Wilson encourage you:

"Read like a reader, and not like someone cramming for a test. If you try to wring every book out like it was a washcloth full of information, all you will do is slow yourself down to a useless pace. Go for total tonnage, and read like someone who will forget most of it. You have my permission to forget most of it, which may or may not be reassuring, but you will forget most of it in either case. Most of what is shaping you in the course of your reading, you will not be able to remember. The most formative years of my life were the first five, and if those years were to be evaluated on the basis of my ability to pass a test on them, the conclusion would be that nothing important happened then, which would be false. The fact that you can't remember things doesn't mean that you haven't been shaped by them.

At the same time, mark everything striking that you read -- you won't remember everything you read, and you won't even remember everything you mark. Nevertheless, it is not a sin to remember some things, or to mark them in a way to be able to find them again."

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-06-17T18:34:00.000-07:00

How to Give Away Your Faith by Paul Little

A Hint of Things to Come

2010-06-17T18:28:00.000-07:00

After well over a month of inactivity it is time for the silence to be broken....but not yet. Many posts are forthcoming: A paper on Limited Atonement, reflections on (and pictures of) my trip to the middle-east, and finally my take on 'LOST' (Just watched the finale yesterday). Perhaps surprisingly for some, in my mind all of these topic are intimately related!

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-05-12T08:02:00.000-07:00

The Language of the New Testament by Eugene Van Ness Goetchius

Paul and the Fourfold Israel: An Examination of the Pauline Theology of Israel

2010-05-10T18:57:00.000-07:00

The nation of Israel stands near the heart of the Biblical storyline. From Genesis 12 through the rest of the Old Testament, the Seed of Abraham is center stage in God’s redemptive drama. The breaking in of the eschatological kingdom with the coming of Christ begs the question as to what such a cataclysmic redemptive-historical event means for Israel. This question is by no means left untreated by the New Testament, nor by Christianity’s chief theologian, the Apostle Paul. An analysis of Paul’s writings indicates that the Apostle theologically distinguished (but did not separate) four different Israel’s. The textual data of the Pauline epistles concerning Israel can be categorized into: Jesus as the True Israel, the Church as the New Israel, the elect remnant of Israel, and ethnic Israel. Each group is integrally and organically related to the other in God’s salvation drama.

Jesus as the True Israel

At the heart of Pauline theology is Jesus Christ. For Paul, all roads lead to Christ. Indeed, even at the level of theological formulation “all things hold together in Him” (Col 1:17). Thus any attempt at delineating Paul’s theology of Israel must be firmly embedded in how Paul develops the theological import of Israel Christologically. In other words Christology precedes Israelology. Considering Paul’s view of Israel abstracted from Christ is to bereft oneself of Paul’s most foundational and pervasive theological conviction; that Jesus is the Messianic David who has fulfilled the eschatological hopes of the Old Testament and inaugurated the long-awaited Kingdom of God on earth. To state it another way, Jesus is not merely the ABC’s of Pauline theology, He is the A to Z of Pauline theology (1).

All prophecies, promises, types, shadows, laws, indeed the entire Old Testament comes to fulfillment in Christ. The Law and the Prophets served a prophetic role of announcing the coming Messiah and the saving righteousness and reign of God which would be ushered in with God’s kingdom (Rom. 3:21). This kingdom age has now been revealed in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22). Paul, then, sees Jesus standing at the very center of redemptive history. He is the promised Messianic Son of God who has come “in the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4). That is to say, Jesus’ arrival into human history has brought about the eschatological hope of Israel and of the world.

Paul’s reading of the Old Testament is openly Christocentric. This Christocentrism can be seen not only by analyzing the way Paul models how to read the Hebrew Scriptures in his epistles but is also explicitly stated as the Apostle’s hermeneutical foundation in 2 Corinthians 2:10; “All the promises of God find their yes in [Jesus].” This Christotelic reading of the Old Testament drives the Christoclimactic narratives of the Gospels and teaching of the epistles. The Pauline letters, then, must be read with an eye toward Christ as the one who brings fulfillment. This fulfillment emphasis summarily encapsulates both necessary components of Christ’s organic continuity to the redemptive work of God in the Old Testament while at the same time recognizing that Christ’s appearance has caused cosmic redemptive-historical transitions which have resulted in discontinuity with the Old Testament.

On these grounds it is not strange to find Paul (as well as the rest of the New Testament authors) interpreting the Old Testament narrative of Israel through a Christotelic lens; reading all the nation’s promises and prophecies as having come to fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ, the True Israel. While this theme is perhaps stronger in the Gospel narratives than it is in the writings of Paul (2), it is clear that Paul also identified Christ as the True, eschatological Israel (3). This is most fully delineated by Paul in Galatians 3:16, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.”

The heart of God’s promise to Abraham was that through him and his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3). As the promise develops to Abraham, and in further centuries to his seed, God reveals to the patriarch that he will be a father of a kingly dynasty (Gen. 17:6). This royal seed will rule over a people that will act as a “light to the nations” so that the blessing of God’s salvation might “reach to the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6).

However, far from being a light to the Gentiles Israel ultimately found themselves in bondage to the Gentiles. Their rebellion against YHWH and disobedience to the covenant led to their exile from the land in both 722 and 586 BC. What then became of the promises to Abraham and to his seed? Paul explains that Israel had fallen under the curse of God for failing to “abide by all things written in the Book of the Law.” However, this does not nullify the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel for, as Paul explains, Jesus Himself is the true, singular “seed of Abraham,” or in other words the true Israel, who both bears the curse of God to redeem us from the curse of the law (Gal. 4:4-5) as well as offers a perfect obedience and faithfulness to God and thus inherits the promises given to the patriarch.

At first glance the substance of Paul’s argument seems a little odd. Paul knows as well as anyone that το σπέρμα is a collective singular; in fact he uses it just this way only a few verses later in Galatians 3:29! What then should we make of Paul’s exegesis of the Abrahamic Covenant? This question forces us to two options: either Paul is deliberately distorting Scripture’s interpretation for the promotion of his own religious program in Galatia, or he is both providing and at the same time modeling an accurate reading of the Old Testament Text. Since to affirm the first of these options would be to abandon the most fundamental Christian convictions concerning the function of the Apostolic office and the character of Scripture, it is incumbent upon us to seek out Paul’s mind as he interacts with the Abrahamic Covenant.

How then can Paul legitimately argue from the singularity of το σπέρμα while at the same time using it as a collective noun? I believe the answer lies in Paul’s sensitivity to the intricate unity between Abraham’s place both in the book of Genesis and in redemptive history as a whole. The promise of a seed to Abraham surely entails the nation that would come from his posterity, but in the narrative flow of Genesis one cannot but hear the echo of Genesis 3:15 in the promise to the patriarch. The covenant with Abraham is not the first “seed-promise” given to humanity. Rather Abraham enters the scene in Genesis as a new Adam through whom God will bring to fulfillment the promise that a seed of the woman (a singular “he”) will crush the head of the seed of the Serpent, restoring creation from its fallen state. Thus the Genesis narrative itself leads the reader to look for the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises in a singular “seed.” Even Abraham’s immediate descendants seemed to place their hope of God’s fulfillment of His global purpose through Abraham in an individual descendant (Gen. 49:10). Paul’s sensitivity to the narrative flow of Genesis as well as further developments of the Abrahamic Covenant in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures (discussed below) legitimately ground his claim that Jesus is the singular seed of Abraham and thus True Israel.

The Church as the True Israel

While affirming that Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and the true Israel, Paul does not, however, limit the identity of fulfilled Israel merely to the person of Jesus. Instead he also affirms that “it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). How then are we to understand the paradox that both the person of Jesus and the New Covenant community, called the church, are the New Israel?

Paul fleshes out this paradox and the relationship between these two parties in the latter half of Galatians 3. In verses 23-25 Paul explains the redemptive-historical transition that has occurred with the coming of Christ into the world. His arrival signals the obsolescence of the law-covenant, the end of slavery, and the commencement of sonship in the family of God. “Through faith” these blessings are received as we are united to Christ and are made to be “in Him.” By being “in Him” we also become “sons of God” (Gal. 3:26). It is this union with Christ by faith which makes us recipients of the Messianic eschatological blessings.

Paul continues his emphasis on union with Christ describing it as being “baptized into Christ” and having “put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). The result of this identification with Messiah is that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Identity with Christ results in our identity no longer being defined ethnicity, gender, or social distinctions. Rather we become what Christ is. He is the Son of God and thus “in Him” we become “sons of God.” Thus Paul concludes, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29). The reason then that both “those of faith” (Gal. 3:7) and Jesus (Gal. 3:16) can be identified as the seed of Abraham is because faith unites the believer to the The Seed.

In one sense then the church is not, in and of itself, the antitype of Israel. Jesus is the antitype of Israel. He recapitulated their history, He succeeded where they failed, He bore the curses of the covenant, and He inherited the blessings promised to Abraham and David. But the church, in another sense, is the antitype of Israel, not of its own virtue, but because it is united to Jesus, the seed of Abraham. The church is the New Israel because of its union with the true (personal) Israel. This then is a far cry from the mere replacement of Israel with the church. Rather this is Christological fulfillment. Christ stands between Israel of the Old Covenant and Israel of the New Covenant organically connecting both in the history of redemption; the former pointing toward Him, the latter united to Him.

This truth is highlighted throughout the rest of the book of Galatians as Paul combats the Judaizers whose under-realized eschatology both drives and grounds their legalistic heresy. Paul counters this legalism by demonstrating that the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4) has come and Messiah Jesus has delivered us from “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) by ushering in the age of the Spirit and of righteousness, which men and women will partake of through faith alone in the Messiah. This overwhelming redemptive-historical transition wrought by Christ has altered the landscape of salvation-history. Those in Jerusalem living under the law are no longer God’s covenant people for that covenant has been abolished (Gal. 3:15-25). Instead those united to the “seed of Abraham” by faith are identified with “the Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:26). It is those of the household of faith that are “like Isaac” of old in that they “are children of promise” (Gal. 4:28). This means that circumcision, the way in which people were united to the covenant community of God in the Old Testament (Gen. 17:1-14) has been done away. The invasion of the new age means that the new community is entered into in a new way, faith in Christ. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Finally, Paul concludes the argument by repeating that “neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision but a new creation” (Gal. 6:15). And who are these that through faith have become “new creations”? In climactic triumph, Paul answers his Judaizing opponents with perhaps strongest terminology in the epistle to speak of the church’s redemptive historical-relationship to Israel of Old and to Christ; the community of faith is nothing less than “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) (4).

Paul elaborates on this same theme in Ephesians 2:11-22. Here Paul recounts the place of Gentiles in relation to Israel throughout redemptive history. During the age before the arrival of the Messiah the Gentile community was “uncircumcised” and thus shunned by the covenant community. This separation from the community of God also meant that they were “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” and were thus “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:11-12).
Yet once again the appearance of the Messiah has radically altered our own redemptive historical moment and brought about a new era of God’s work of salvation. Specifically it is “the blood,” that is the sacrifice, of Christ that has brought about the end of Gentile alienation from the covenant community. “In Christ” reconciliation between Jew and Gentile has taken place and Gentiles have been “brought near” (Eph. 2:12) to the commonwealth of Israel and covenants of promise. Messiah has “broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.”

Paul’s use of wall-imagery is most likely meant to trigger in the minds of his readers the wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the rest of the temple. That separation, however, is now over, and the nations are no longer denied access to the presence of God. Paul does not deny that Gentiles need to become Jews in order to be part of God’s covenant community. Instead he teaches that Christ has redefined the boundaries of the Israelite community. To be a Jew, and thus a member of Israel’s commonwealth, is no longer to be physically circumcised “in the flesh by hands” (Eph. 2:11), but to be circumcised “without hands” (Col. 2:11) and thus united to Christ in faith.

Again Paul places the emphasis on being “in Christ” as the means by which Gentiles are brought into the covenant community. “In Christ” Gentiles are brought near. “He Himself” is our peace (2:14). “In Him” Jews and Gentiles become one “new man” (2:15). “In Christ Jesus through the Gospel” we are made “partakers of the promise” (3:6). Thus Paul restates that “through Him” we have the gift of the Spirit and access to the Father (2:18), the very blessings of the Abrahamic promise (Gal 3:14).

The end result then of Christ’s work of reconciliation is that Gentiles “are no longer strangers and aliens, but…fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). The promised inclusion of Gentiles in the eschatological age (Isa. 60) has now arrived with the work of Messiah. Gentiles are now Jews and thus part of God’s covenant community by virtue of being “in Christ” the New Man, the New Israel.

To say that the Jews were already “near” and already God’s people, of course, is not to say that ethnic Jews have no need of being “in Christ.” They were indeed “near” to God when the era of salvation came with the coming of Messiah since they were the recipients of the promise. However, to continue as part of God’s covenant community and to be a member of eschatological Israel ethnic Jews must be united to Christ (2:17). “Clinging to the old covenantal arrangement will not suffice now that what was promised in the Old Testament Scriptures has been fulfilled” (5).

Some of the most important (and most complicated) statements regarding the redemptive-historical relationship between the Old and New Israel are found in the Epistle to the Romans. “No one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rom. 2:28-29). Paul reflects Biblically-theologically on the very thing which makes one a Jew: Circumcision (Gen. 17:10-12). Once again the Apostle strikes a harmonic chord carefully balancing continuity and discontinuity. The emphasis is again that of fulfillment. Paul does not deny that it is circumcision which makes one a part of the Jewish/covenant community of God. Instead, he endorses such an idea with the strongest of affirmations. However, with the arrival of the New Covenant in Christ, circumcision has come to its eschatological fulfillment; circumcision of the heart. It is this eschatological/internal circumcision which makes one truly Israel. The same idea is reiterated in Philippians 3:3 when Paul identifies himself with the Gentile Philippians as the “circumcision.” Not because they have been physically circumcised but because they “worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus.” On the contrary, those who do “mutilate the flesh” are “evildoers” and “dogs” (Phil 3:2). That is, they are the unclean enemies of God and living outside the covenant community.

Paul’s New Israel theology is further developed in Romans 4 as the apostle takes up the defense of justification by faith by appealing to Abraham. Righteousness was credited to Abraham on account of his faith (4:3) prior to being circumcised (4:11) so that Abraham might be the father of both those “who believe without being circumcised” (4:11) as well as the circumcised who walk in the faith of Abraham. The result is again that “Abraham is the father of us all,” that is of those who “share” his faith (4:16). Paul argues that these offspring of Abraham, that is true Israelites, will receive the Abrahamic promises; not merely the land of Canaan but what it pointed forward to, the New Creation (4:13).

Without dispute, the most important section of all the Pauline letters delineating the Apostle’s beliefs concerning Israel is his extended discussion of this topic in Romans 9-11, particularly the climactic ending, “and in this way all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). However, the meaning of Paul’s argument and particularly Romans 11:26 is hotly debated. As Wright says, “Romans 9-11 is as full of problems as a hedgehog is of prickles” (6). Zocalli identifies five major readings of the text within the history of interpretation, each with their own countless nuanced variations (7). It goes beyond the limits of this paper to fully interact with each of these interpretations and their most able proponents. Instead, I will submit a brief explanation of the text’s primary argument as well as a defense as to why the phrase “all Israel” refers to the elect from both Jew and Gentile heritage.

Before entering into Paul’s argument, it is important to remember that when Paul composes Romans 9-11 he does so having already “tipped his hand,” so to speak, regarding how God’s promises are being fulfilled to Israel. The relevant textual data of chapters two and four have already been examined above. Thus chapter 9-11 must not be isolated from the entire literary context of the epistle. This is, of course, not to say that the meaning of Romans 2 and that of Romans 4 must be identical with that of Romans 9-11. However, it does provide for us the necessary theological and literary framework which ought to both inform and influence our reading of the text.

The theme of Romans 9-11 is necessitated by the first eight chapters of Romans. The end of Romans 8, as indicated by the doxology, is the climactic finale that Paul has been moving toward since 1:18. The great hope of the Christian is that the promises of God cannot fail. Those whom God has called will be made into the image of His Son (Rom. 8:28-30) and those who have been justified cannot be separated from the love of Christ. Yet the apostle anticipates what he believes to be the growing theological tension in the mind of his readers, “Can the new community trust God’s Word when it seems to have failed the Jews?” (8). As Piper explains:

"Since the Gospel that [Paul] proclaims in Rom. 1-8 is the power of God unto salvation “to the Jews first” (1:16) and since… “the faithlessness of the Jews does not nullify the faithfulness of God” (3:3)…the question of Israel’s destiny becomes acute. It grows necessarily out of the exposition of Rom. 1-8…The unbelief of Israel, the chosen people, and their consequent separation from Christ (Rom. 9:3) seem to call God’s word into question and thus to jeopardize not only the privileged place of Israel, but also the Christian hope as well" (9).

The general thrust of Paul’s argument in chapters 9-10 can be summed up by his introductory thesis; “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6). In Romans 9 Paul defends this confession by appealing to the fact that being an inheritor of the Abrahamic promises was never predicated on physical relation to Abraham. Ishamael was rejected (9:7) as was Esau (9:13) from God’s covenant community though both were, at least according to the flesh, Abraham’s seed. Likewise, the Jews of Paul’s day were cut off from the covenant blessing for having rejected the saving righteousness of God found in their Messiah and in seeking to establish a righteousness of their own (Rom. 10:3). God never promised that all ethnic Israelites would receive the covenant blessings, only those, who like their father Abraham, walked in faith. Covenant membership then has nothing to do with ethnic descent but with election of grace (Rom. 9) and faith in Christ (Rom. 10).

The argument comes full circle in chapter 11. Paul again asks “Has God rejected His people.” Paul responds to the contrary by providing two arguments that there has always been and always will be a remnant of Jewish believers according to election grace (11:1-6). The “how” of Israel’s salvation is then explained in 11:11-24. Israel’s “stumbling” (11:1) has resulted in the saving righteousness of God going forth to the Gentiles (11:2) and their being grafted into the olive tree, God’s covenant community (11:17). Paul’s response to this salvation-historical transition is not reassuring his readers that the eschatological age will usher in a last minute salvation of the Jews, thus fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham (10). Instead he reassures his readers that this is the very means by which God is fulfilling his promises to Abraham, the father of many nations, and gathering to Himself a universal seed from both the Jewish and Gentile heritage. The inclusion of the Gentiles, which is part and parcel of the promises to Israel (see Rom. 10:19), results in jealousy on the part of the Jews in seeing others inherit the Messianic kingdom. This jealousy results in the salvation of some Jews (11:14), not in the eschaton but in the present age as they abandon unbelief and are re-grafted back into the olive tree (11:24).

11:25a serves as Paul’s warning to the Roman gentiles that they do not become haughty in their new found identity as the people of God, as did the Old Covenant community. The grounds of undercutting this arrogance is what Paul identifies as the “mystery.” Contrary to what some have asserted, this “mystery” is not some new revelation immediately given to Paul concerning the eschatological salvation of future Israelites (11) (which goes strangely unmentioned in the rest of the Pauline epistles). Instead this mystery is the “partial hardening [that] has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25). The mystery is that “instead of immediately judging the people that rejected his Son, God has allowed a period of hardening within which his salvation will spread to the ends of the earth, but at the end of which there will be judgment” (12). Israel’s hardening results in Gentile inclusion in the covenant community (they come “in” that is into Israel, into the Olive tree) resulting in Jewish jealousy and subsequent re-inclusion in the covenant community (that is re-admittance into Israel). And in climactic resolution Paul states “And in this way all Israel will be saved” (11:26). οὕτως communicates not the temporal ordering (first gentiles then Jews) but the manner of salvation (Gentiles grafted in -->Jews moved to Jealousy -->Jews believe -->Jewish believers grafted back in). As Wright states:

"It is the interpretation of a particular process as the salvation of ‘All Israel.’…God’s method of saving ‘all Israel’ is to harden ethnic Israel (cp. 9:14ff.) i.e., not judge her at once, so as to create a period of time during which the gentile mission could be undertaken, during the course of which it remains God’s will that the present ‘remnant’ of believing Jews might be enlarged by the process of ‘jealousy’, and consequent faith, described above. This whole process is God’s way of saving his whole people: that is the meaning of καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται" (13).

The validity of reading “all Israel” as referring to the New Israel made up of the believing community (including both Jew and Gentile) is further substantiated by a careful intertextual reading of the Old Testament quotations Paul uses as the scriptural grounds for the conclusions drawn in 11:26a. 11:26b-11:27 is the product of a remarkably sophisticated web woven from Isaiah 2:3, 27:9, 59:20, Jeremiah 31:34, and Micah 4:2. Each of these references are found embedded in literary-theological contexts similar to the others, the coming eschatological restoration of Israel, the end of the exile, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, and the inauguration of the New Covenant. These promises are clearly fulfilled (in part) now with the ingathering of the Gentiles, the pouring out of the Spirit, the end of exile, and the spread of the Gospel to all nations. Paul’s argument is clear. The subtext evoked by these quotations invites the reader to see the salvation of “all Israel” in the manner described above as the Gentile-including, nations-saving dawning of the kingdom of God ushered in by the Messiah. This is further emphasized by Paul’s alteration of the Septuagintal text, that the Redeemer will come “from Zion” instead of “to Zion.” That is the arrival of the eschatological age will not terminate “in” and “to” Israel alone, but will spread “from” Zion to the nations thus fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:3).

It is difficult to find other extended discussions of the church being the New Israel in the Pauline writings outside of the aforementioned texts in Galatians, Ephesians 2-3, and Romans. However, this silence on the part of Paul is most likely due to the fact that the Apostle counted this truth as so foundational to his Kingdom-proclamation that it was more often assumed as the ground of his theological/pastoral teaching than it was articulated. In other words, Paul, like all others, often leaves his most foundational beliefs unarticulated. These unarticulated beliefs form his thinking and phraseology but do not necessarily all the time find their way into the content of the Pauline Epistles. However, that is not to say we do not find evidence of the Pauline concept that the church is the New Israel scattered throughout the rest of the New Testament. Rather Paul’s doctrine of New Covenant fulfillment often appears just under the surface of the text.

Many such occurrences appear in 1 Corinthians. The church, for example is told to cleanse the “leaven” out of their midst for Christ is their “Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7-8). The allusion is clearly to Passover (Exo. 12), the redemptive event which formed the people of God from a rabble band of slaves into the nation of Israel (Exo. 12:2). Paul’s Christotelic reading of Exodus points us to fulfillment in Christ the true Passover sacrifice Who redeemed (and thus formed) a new people (the church) from bondage to death in a New Exodus. Paul will pick up on this yet again later in the epistle when (quoting Jesus’ statements from the Gospels) he refers to the Lord’s Supper as the “New Covenant” meal (1 Cor. 11:25), thus replacing the Old covenant meal of Passover. The significance of such a statement is that the eschatological hopes of a resurrected Israel have been fulfilled. God’s promises to make a New Covenant “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” have been fulfilled and the church is now under the New Covenant. Not that the church has replaced the “house of Israel and the house of Judah” but instead they are “the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” the redeemed community of True Israel.

Likewise in 1 Corinthians 10:1, 4 Paul writes, “I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea….For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” Paul’s allusion is again to the events of the Exodus, particularly the crossing of the Red Sea and the wilderness wandering. The apostle does not speak of these events as referring merely “to Israel” but instead to “our fathers.” The Gentile Corinthians can just as much claim the Israelites in the wilderness as “their fathers” as Paul the Jewish apostle. The Gentile believers are the seed of Israel, the children of Abraham. The conclusion then must be drawn that in the New Covenant era to be identified with Israel is neither through birth nor fleshly circumcision but through rebirth and circumcision of the heart. The New Israel can look back upon the Old Israel with great continuity and call them their “fathers” but they can also look upon their own situation and recognize the great discontinuities that exist. For no longer does a shadowy “rock” (1 Cor. 10:4) point them to the coming Messiah, but the substance has already arrived in Jesus.

Even more subtle allusions of the redemptive-historical transition between Old and New Israel can be found in the Corinthian letter. For example, Paul refers to the nation of Israel as “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 1:18) (14). The necessary implication of such a statement is that there exists an Israel according to the spirit, an Israel which possesses the Spirit (Gal. 3:14).

Further, Paul states this same truth in another way when he writes to the Corinthians, “You know that when you were gentiles, you were led astray to dumb idols” (1 Cor. 12:2) (15). Paul informs the Corinthians they “were” Gentiles. Again the necessary implication is that they are so no longer. Instead these Corinthians have entered Israel’s New Covenant Community to worship the Jewish Messiah and have thus ceased to be counted as Gentiles but as part of God’s truly Jewish community.

Another line of evidence that the New Israel is comprised of both Jewish and Gentile believers is the redemptive terminology Paul uses to identify this group of people. The believing community has done more than just assume the mere name of God’s Old Covenant people (as if they were but a replacement of Old Israel). They have in fact become the inheritor of all the redemptive blessings that the nation of Israel experienced in the Old Covenant. However, through Christ these benefits have come to fulfillment. Thomas Schreiner helpfully summarizes much of this information.

"Designations used to describe Israel in the Old Testament are applied to the church of Christ. We begin with the word ekklesia (assembly, church). The qahal (assembly) of Yahweh, often translated ekklesia in the LXX, was Israel in the Old Testament (Judg 20:2; 1 Kings 8:14, 22, 55; 12:3). Paul regularly applies the term ekklesia to his Gentile readers (Rom. 16:1, 4; 1 Cor 1:2; 4:17 11:16; 14:33-34; 16:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:1; Gal. 1:2; Col. 4:15-16; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philem. 2). The new assembly of God comprises Jews and Gentiles. Similarly, in the Old Testament, Israel was “holy” (hagios—Exo. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2, 21; 28:9), “elect” (eklektos—1 Chron. 16:13; Ps. 89:3; 106:5; Lam. 1:15 LXX) “beloved” (agapetoi—Ps. 60:5; 108:6) and “called” (kaleo—Is. 41:9, 42:6; 43:1, 22). All these terms are now applied to Gentiles in Christ. They are God’s “holy ones” (e.g., Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; 3:12; Philem. 5), “chosen” (Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 1:1), “beloved” (Rom. 1:7; Eph. 5:1) and “called” (Rom 1:6-7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2, 24). The transfer of terms to the church that applied to Israel signifies that the church is the new people of God, the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel" (16).

The Remnant of Israel

Paul has yet another theological category for considering Israel; the “remnant of Israel.” As explained above, in Romans 11 Paul wrestles with the issue of discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants and just how Israel (as a nation) was at one time the chosen people of God but have now en masse rejected their Messiah and their eschatological hopes. He asks what seems to be the logical question “Has God rejected His people?” (Rom. 11:1a). Has God so turned away from ethnic Israel to damn them all?

The Apostle’s response to such a question is “By no means” (v. 1). Three primary lines of evidence are then provided to buttress Paul’s exclamatory response. First, Paul Himself is an Israelite “a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin” and he is certainly no stranger to the saving-righteousness of God. Second, God’s ways in the past with Israel have not been so very different from what they are now. During Israel’s apostasy in the time of Elijah, God’s response to the grieving and lonely prophet was “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (11:4). Thirdly, in the present redemptive-historical epoch only a “partial hardening” (11:25) has happened to Israel. The logical import of this “partial hardening” then is that not all Israelites have been hardened against the Lord and His anointed.

The common theme through each of these three lines of evidence can be summarized by Paul’s statement in 11:5, “at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.” Thus, though circumstantial evidence may lead us to contrary convictions, Paul assures us that within the ethnically Jewish community there remains a faithful remnant. Or as Paul stated earlier, there exists an Israel within an Israel (Rom. 9:6). There is a remnant of men descended physically from the Patriarchs that are both circumcised in flesh and in the heart.

The Nation of Israel: Past, Present, and Future.

What then is the place of national Israel in the theology of the Apostle. Or in the words of Paul himself, “What advantage has the Jew?” (Rom. 3:1). Paul's sensitivity to the progress of salvation-history means he does not provide a simplistic or historically “flattened” answer to the question. When Paul reflects on the nation of Israel he does so not as an atemporal nation, but according to movements and shifts in the salvation-historical timeline. That is Paul's thinking on the Hebrew nation must be delineated in terms of past, present, and future.

How then does Paul view Israel of the past (meaning Israel prior to the coming of Christ)? It should not surprise us that the Apostle fundamentally believed what the Old Testament said concerning the nation of Israel. According to the Old Testament and thus according to the apostle the nation was the covenant people of God. In the words of Paul then there are clearly benefits in having come from Jewish stock (Rom. 3:2). They were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:3). To them belonged “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Rom 9:4-5). Thus, Israel was greatly favored by God to be the only nation on earth that had been prepared to look for the eschatological saving-righteousness of God. They alone had received God’s covenants and promises which pointed them to the Messiah to come, and they alone knew the Redeemer would be one of their own seed.

Does the coming of Christ then in some way strip these salvation-historical benefits from Israel? Paul would respond to the contrary. The apostle’s words concerning Israel in Rom 9:4-5 refer not only to Israel in the past but still in a certain sense to the nation of Israel in Paul’s own redemptive-historical epoch. The status of the nation at the present time is one of greater privilege than the rest of the nations for, in the words of Ephesians 2, ethnic Israelites are already “near” to God’s saving eschatological work. They above all others know the Divine promises, made through the covenants, of God’s reign and eschatological restoration. They alone had the Divine Oracle placed in their possession. They are not ignorant of the things of God and for some time were the only people on earth privy to humanity’s messianic hope.

In this way, then, the Jews are still privileged, not because the Old Covenant in and of itself terminates in blessing but because the Old Covenant points to the One who has inherited all blessing, Jesus Christ. The Jews are “advantaged” because they have been uniquely used by God, thus their history is redemptive-history and their Scriptures are God’s Scriptures. These Scriptures are Christotelic, awaiting the eschatological fulfillment of Messiah. The Jews then, above all others, ought to know and embrace the eschatological King and His saving reign when He appears. But for ethnic Jews to be part of God’s eschatological community they must abandon the shadow of the Old Covenant for the reality of the New. To fail to do so is to act contrary to their own Scriptures, which, in hope, prophetically announce the coming obsolescence of the Old Covenant with the inauguration of the eschatological age (Jer. 31:31-32).

Paul also states that these redemptive-historical privileges will indeed be the means by which some Jews escape judgment and are brought into eschatological salvation (as explained above). According to Romans 11:11 ethnic Israel’s en masse rejection of their Messiah has resulted in salvation going forth to the Gentiles, “so as to make Israel jealous.” This jealousy is prompted by the fact that Gentiles are now the True Israel and inheritors of the promises given to the patriarchs. The great hope of Israel has come but it has not come to the community once marked off by the ethnic distinctions of the Old Covenant but to the community marked off by the saving-eschatological distinctions of the New Covenant. When the Jews see the fulfillment of their promises and the arrival of their own Messianic hope and see also that they have failed to enter into the eschatological community they are moved to jealousy. This jealousy then provokes them away from the Old Covenant and toward Christ. Paul informs us that end result then of this jealousy is the salvation of “some of them” (Rom. 11:14). In other words, God will use Israel’s Old Covenant promises as a means to drive them to the New Covenant in the present era.

Thus synthesizing the data of Scripture, in Paul’s mind ethnic Israel is no longer the covenant people of God. Eschatological Israel (=The church) is the covenant people of God. This community now receives all the redemptive benefits achieved on their behalf by the Messiah. Ethnic Jews then that are separated from Christ are under God’s just condemnation and have no part in the kingdom of God. If then they are to become part of God’s covenant community and receive the fulfillment of all that was promised to them they must unite themselves to the True Israel, Jesus, by faith, forsaking the Old Covenant and embracing the fulfillment of all things in Him.

The remaining question, of course, is what does Paul believe concerning the future of ethnic Israel? Will there be an eschatological salvation of all or at least most Jewish people just prior to the return of Christ? Or, as some have postulated, will there be a restoration of the Jewish kingdom with a rebuilt temple and re-established Davidic throne?

Paul gives no indication that there is a distinct eschatological future for ethnic Israel. Instead Paul’s emphasis is on fulfillment, that the distinctives of the Old Covenant have passed away now that “apart from the law [covenant]” (Rom 3:21) the saving-rightousness of God has been revealed in Christ. It would certainly seem strange then for Paul to hold to a future for ethnic Israel when throughout His epistles the apostle emphasizes that the future of Israel has already come in the New Covenant community, the church. For God to return then to some form of redemptive-historical program for ethnic Israel would appear to be retrogression in salvation-history and a denial that the church in union with Christ has indeed fulfilled the eschatological hopes of Israel.

This is also fully in accord with the source of Paul’s theology, the Old Testament. The narrative of Abraham in the literary flow of Genesis (specifically as it echoes the garden narrative) is to be read not so much as the creation of “a new nation, but of a new humanity” (17). This emphasis is clearly understood and picked up by Paul in Romans 4 when he reads the promise to Abraham of the land of Canaan to be that the patriarch would be an “heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). “This means that the birth of Israel as a nation and its raison d’etre are set within God’s larger purposes for the world and for creation,” (18) the promises given to Abraham, Israel, and David were never meant to terminate in Israel alone but craved universal fulfillment.

Thus, while Paul does not present any distinct future for ethnic Israel, they certainly have a future as part of the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη that Paul, and all others, were commissioned to evangelize (Matt. 28:19). From their nation, as from all nations, will arise a community of Spirit-endowed believers made into new creatures in Christ. Within the borders of Israel will be a new humanity awaiting the consummation of all things, partakers of Israel’s eschatological hope.

_________________________________________________________________

(1) For this analogy I am indebted to Timothy Keller, Fellowship Group Handbook, Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

(2) See for example R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1989), 206-210.

(3) This difference in emphasis is certainly no indication of contradiction in theology. The most likely reason the Gospels portray Christ as the True Israel more often than the epistles is due to the fact that the Jesus traditions are assumed as the epistolary subtext. Thus the letters of the New Testament serve not merely as a repetition of what is found in the Gospels but as an expansion, explanation, and application. See Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).

(4) Many have contested that the believing community of both Jews and Gentiles are the referent of the phrase“Israel of God”. For example Barry Horner states, “Paul was reminded of a minority group in the church at Galatia, a small number of Jewish Christians. They were ethnically Jewish but different from ‘those who want to make a good showing in the flesh’ (6:12). He included them in his exhortation since they, being authentic Jewish Christians, were ‘the Israel of God’ and with Gentiles were equally able to participate in the benediction of ‘peace’ and ‘mercy’ (6:16). Barry Horner, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged, NAC Studies in Bible and Theology, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, no. 3 (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 263-264. However, arguments in support of Horner’s position are wanting. For helpful a defense of “Israel of God” referring to both Jews and Gentiles see Brian J. Vickers, “Who is the ‘Israel of God’ (Galatians 6:16)?” Eusebeia 6 (2006): 5-10.

(5) Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 56.

(6) N.T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 231.

(7) Christopher Zocalli, “‘And So All Israel Will Be Saved’ Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship,” Journal For the Study of the New Testament 30, no. 3 (2008): 290. Zocalli labels these interpretations “(1) eschatological miracle, (2) ecclesiological, (3) Roman mission, (4) two-covenant and (5) total national elect.”

(8) Walter Gutbrod in John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 19.

(9) Piper, 18-19. Piper also helpfully reminds his readers that one should not confuse the spiritual state of Israel as Paul’s primary concern in this text. “What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel; that is penultimate. Ultimately God’s own trustworthiness is at stake” (19).

(10) Contra Schreiner, 471-484. This view is also held by numerous commentators and is one of the most common in the history of interpretation, see Zocalli, 289-318.

(11) Contra F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (London: Tyndale Press, 1963), 221.

(12) Wright, 249.

(13) Ibid., 250.

(14) Author’s own translation of Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα.

(15) Author’s own translation of Οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα.

(16) Schreiner, 83-84.

(17) Stephen Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson, vol. 15 (Donwers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 81.

(18) Ibid., 23.

_____________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale Press, 1963.

Dempster, Stephen. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson, no. 15. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

France, R.T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1989.

Fesko, J.V. Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology. Glasgow: Christian Focus Publications, 2007.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1979.

Horner, Barry. Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged. NAC Studies in Bible and Theology, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, no. 3. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2007.

Matera, Frank J. New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

Merkle, Ben L. “Romans 11 and The Future of Ethnic Israel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43, no. 4 (2000): 709-721.

Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. NAC Studies in Bible and Theology, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, no. 6. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group. 2009.

Pao, David. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: And Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2000.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

_________. “The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel in Paul.” Studia Biblica Et Theologica 13 (1983): 17-38.

_________. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

Stott, John R.W. The Message of Romans. The Bible Speaks Today, ed. John R.W. Stott. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Thompson, Michael B. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.

Vickers, Brian J. “Who is the ‘Israel of God’ (Galatians 6:16)?” Eusebeia 6 (2006): 5-10.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994.

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

_________. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Zocalli, Christopher. “‘And So All Israel Will Be Saved’ Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30, no 3 (2008): 289-318.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-04-17T16:16:00.000-07:00

New Testament Theology by Frank Matera

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-04-05T11:58:00.001-07:00

New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ by Thomas R. Schreiner

Finally...The Pictures

2010-03-29T14:58:00.000-07:00

Elijah Saeed Emadi

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-03-06T13:32:00.001-08:00

The Cross of Christ by John Stott

Gospel-Centered Pro-Life Ministry in Louisville

2010-02-08T19:00:00.000-08:00

Every morning members of Immanuel Baptist Church in Louisville, KY and other faithful churches in the area gather outside the abortion clinic to plead with women to save the lives of their unborn babies and turn to the hope of the Gospel. They are met every morning by pro-choice escorts who seek to do everything in their power to stop the rescue of the unborn and the proclamation of the Good News in Jesus Christ. This video provides a brief sketch of the pro-life ministry here in Louisville.

Abortion: A Matter of Life or Death from Casey Cashell on Vimeo.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-02-05T08:25:00.000-08:00

Created in God's Image by Anthony Hoekema

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-01-29T10:32:00.001-08:00

The Person of Christ by Donald Macleod

True Greatness

2010-01-21T16:55:00.000-08:00

"Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:26-28)

These parents gloriously reflect the type of servant lifestyle that Jesus identifies as true greatness.

99 Balloons from Igniter Media on Vimeo.

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-01-20T08:53:00.001-08:00

Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek by Constantine R. Campbell

What I Just Finished Reading

2010-01-14T12:19:00.001-08:00

Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew by Jonathan T. Pennington

My Dad's Birthday Video

2010-01-05T17:38:00.000-08:00

I made this birthday video for my dad. Most of the folks are from my dorm hall! I hope everyone enjoys!

A Vertical Perspective on the Cross

2010-01-05T17:35:00.000-08:00

“Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5)

We tend to look at the cross only from the side. That is a tragedy. Tragic because it fails to behold glory; tragic because it fails to wonder at love; tragic because it fails to see the heart of the Gospel.

A “horizontal perspective” of the cross will not reveal the deepest sufferings of Jesus. Of course the physical agony from nails thrust into Jesus’ hands was real. And the emotional suffering of man betrayed and abandoned by His closest friends was real. And the anguish of being unjustly condemned and mercilessly mocked was real. But to see only these pains is to fail to see the Gospel.

What we need is a “top-down” look at the cross, that is to say a “vertical perspective.” The most important question we can ask ourselves when we are gaze at the agony that is happening on the cross is not how big the nails are, or how lonely the Savior felt after being abandoned by His friends, or how traumatic it was to be unjustly condemned. The most important question we can ask is “what is happening between the God the Father and His Son at the Place of the Skull?”

What does this “vertical look” at the cross reveal? It reveals the Savior “Smitten of God.” It reveals the Father pouring out furious, righteous wrath on His Son. It reveals the Son suffering the torment for our sin. Jesus is not like other men when He dies on the cross; He is not like the thieves on His right and on His left. His suffering is not like their suffering; His pains are not like their pains. On the cross the Savior is absorbing infinite wrath; crushed in the hands of an angry God.

Why? Because “The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” Isaiah informs us that the wrath poured out on Christ was wrath reserved for sinners. But Jesus dies in their place. He is tormented for their sin. He suffers the penalty of wrath as a substitute for sinners. He endures what we could not and He conquers what we could not overcome. And by all this “we are healed.” What a tragedy to see the cross only from the side. But when we look at the sufferings of Calvary from the top-down we can, with awestruck wonder, say with Paul, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

What I Just Finished Reading

2009-12-30T22:11:00.000-08:00

Peacemaking for Families: A Biblical Guide to Managing Conflict in Your Home by Ken Sande with Tom Raabe

What I Just Finished Reading

2009-12-22T11:00:00.000-08:00

Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology by J.V. Fesko

What I Just Finished Reading

2009-12-19T16:07:00.001-08:00

Remember Everything You Read: The Evelyn Wood 7-Day Speed Reading and Learning Program by Stanley Frank

What I Just Finished Reading

2009-12-09T09:12:00.001-08:00

Shift: What it Takes to Finally Reach Families Today by Brian Haynes

What I Just Finished Reading

2009-12-08T10:56:00.000-08:00

Perspectives on Family Ministry: 3 Views edited by Timothy Paul Jones

Matthew's Inclusion of Women in the Genealogy - Intertextuality with Genesis 3:15

2009-12-05T15:41:00.000-08:00

Matthew’s use of the Old Testament is rivaled by few other authors in the New Testament. As Stanton has noted “The Old Testament is woven into the warp and woof of this gospel; the evangelist uses Scripture to underline some of the most prominent and distinctive theological concerns.”¹ Yet even more than being a book of allusions to and quotations from the Old Testament, the Gospel of Matthew grew from the soil of the Old Testament. As Hays explains, “[the] gospels developed within the matrix of Israel’s scripture: the Old Testament was the generative milieu for the gospels, the original environment in which the first Christian traditions were conceived, formed and nurtured.”²

Perhaps no pericope in the Matthean narrative is more abounding with Old Testament allusion than the introductory genealogy (Matt. 1:1-17). Each member of the list is not just a name but a story, and each story evokes a redemptive work of God in history. Matthew’s genealogy, however, is punctuated with anomalies, specifically his unique inclusion of four women. Several reasons have been posited as to why Matthew included Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου (i.e. Bathsheba), most of them valid and harmonious with one another. The most popular and, I would argue, the primary reason for their inclusion is that each of these women are Gentiles. In conjunction with the declaration of 1:1 that Jesus is the “son of Abraham,” Gentilic inclusion in the genealogy would further serve Matthew’s argument that the blessing to all the nations through Abraham has been fulfilled in Christ.³ Other reasons for their inclusion have also been adduced. Each woman is associated with sexual scandal, which would foreshadow the scandal surrounding Mary’s sexual behavior.⁴ Along the same vein others have argued that such notorious sinners in Jesus’ family tree intensify the declaration of Jesus as Savior from sin (Matt. 1:21).⁵

These diverse yet harmonious interpretations demonstrate that Matthew’s unique inclusion of these four women in his introductory genealogy cannot be reductionistically shriveled to a single intent but must be seen as an intertextually and theologically a thick corpus of allusion serving multiple intents in the complex of arguments in the genealogy. In addition to the interpretations mentioned above, I believe there is yet another intertextual layer to Matthew’s inclusion of the women which not only enhances our understanding of the Matthean genealogy but leads us to notice an Old Testament theme developed in Matthew’s Gospel which has suffered undue neglect. Namely, Matthew’s development of the promise of Genesis 3:15 in his narrative, portraying Jesus as the “seed of the woman” who has come to crush the head of the “seed of the serpent.” Therefore, the aim of this paper is to argue for the plausibility that Matthew’s unique inclusion of women in his genealogy, while serving many different theological purposes, echoes the promise of Genesis 3:15 thereby demonstrating Christ as the long-expected seed of the woman.⁶

It goes beyond the intention of this paper to discuss hermeneutical methodology and criteria for intertextuality. I therefore refer the reader to Richard Hays seven criteria for intertextual connection,⁷ all the while recognizing that even these criteria are reductionistic since “it needs to be remembered that weighing the evidence for recognizing allusions is not an exact science but is a kind of art.”⁸ However, what is important for the purposes of this paper is the recognition that allusions and echoes to particular individuals or events brings with it an entire context of events and characters. Or as Hays states;

[A text may] allude to an earlier text in a way that evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited. The result is that the interpretation of [a text] requires the reader to recover unstated or suppressed correspondences between the two texts….[This means] we must go back and examine the wider contexts in the scriptural precursors to understand the figurative effects produced by the intertextual connections.⁹

The immediate context of Matthew’s introductory chapter beckons the reader to hear echoes of the Genesis garden. The importance of Matthew 1:1, in particular, cannot be overstated. The title “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ” as well as the identifications of Jesus as “Christ,” “Son of David,” and “Son of Abraham” functions to create a remarkably thick layer of intertextual connection, introducing the readers to major themes that Matthew intends to develop throughout His Gospel: that Jesus is the long-awaited Davidic king, as well as the seed of Abraham that will bring God’s blessing to all the nations. It has already been noted above that not only are these themes immediately developed in the genealogy but they are also intimately related to the women Matthew has chosen to include as foremothers of Jesus. It is commonly recognized, then, that there exists a strong link between the latter half of 1:1 and the following genealogy.

Yet while most commentators are faithful to rightly note the strong association between “Son of David, Son of Abraham” (v. 1b) and the genealogy, none have gone so far as to see any connection between 1:1a and the following pericope. Davies and Allison,¹⁰ Carson,¹¹ Nolland,¹² as well as others¹³ have all made strong arguments for linking the latter of half of 1:1 to the genealogy but none of them have made any effort at connecting Βίβλος γενέσεως to the following context. However, failing to connect all of verse 1 with the genealogy, I believe impoverishes our theological reading of the narrative.

The opening phrase Βίβλος γενέσεως is drawn from the Septuagintal title of the Book of Genesis and is the Greek translation of the תולדות formula which serves as an immensely important theological and structural marker throughout Genesis. The immediate implication of this allusion is that Matthew is demonstrating Jesus to be recapitulating the book of Genesis, particularly identifying Jesus as the New Creation.¹⁴ This creation allusion in Matthew 1:1 is not merely a verbal link, however, but is also part of a larger narrative structure built by Matthew. That is, the entire Gospel is designed to reflect the structure of the Hebrew Canon. Just as Βίβλος γενέσεως recalls the Septuagintal title of Genesis, so also the conclusion of Matthew (28:18-20) is designed to reflect the conclusion of the final book of the Hebrew Scriptures, 2 Chronicles (36:22-23). Thus Matthew intends for us to be harboring the narrative context of Genesis in our mind as we read His Gospel, particularly in the introductory chapters.

However, Matthew’s intentions in including Βίβλος γενέσεως are narrower than merely recreating the structure of the Hebrew Bible, or even evoking the message of Genesis as a whole. Rather, I will argue Matthew’s use of Βίβλος γενέσεως as well as other verbal and structural markers in the introduction, are being used to import the Eden-story into the narrative subcontext of the first chapter in particular, and the Gospel as a whole. While it may be argued that Βίβλος γενέσεως, as the Septuagintal title to Genesis, intends to import the entire Genesis narrative into the subcontext of the first chapter, its juxtaposition to υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ implies Matthew’s focus is much narrower; more particularly situating the allusion in the pre-Abrahamic chapters of Genesis. That is to say, Matthew’s use of Βίβλος γενέσεως situates the reader in the immediate context where these words are first found in Genesis, in the beginning, that is in the Creation/Eden-Story. This Edenic subtext in Matthew 1 is further borne out by Matthew redacting His narrative in such a way as to model the structure of the Eden-Story by describing the new creation from the birds-eye view of the genealogy just as Genesis begins with the birds-eye view of creation; the former climaxing with the birth of Christ, the latter with the creation of Adam. From this macro-perspective Matthew narrows His focus on the birth of Jesus and describes the story of Jesus’ origin in greater detail, just as Genesis likewise narrows its focus for a more concentrated look at the creation of man. Commencing each of these sections in both books is the phrase Βίβλος γενέσεως; Matthew 1:1 corresponding to the title of Genesis and Matthew 1:18 reflecting the language of Genesis 2:4. Thus, that Matthew redacted His narrative after the structure of Genesis is unmistakable. The theological value of this, of course, is that Matthew intends for His readers to import the Eden-story into the narrative subcontext of the pericopae of Matthew 1. The genealogy is then intimately related to these echoes of the Garden and no interpretation can do justice to the genealogy without considering the function of the Garden subcontext in Matthew 1:1-17.

It is in this intertextual web with Genesis that the reader must again consider why Matthew would uniquely include five women in His genealogy. I believe the only possible explanation is that Matthew’s inclusion of Jesus’ foremothers is meant to trigger the, now, not so contextually distant Garden-promise of Genesis 3:15, that the seed of the woman, the only hope for all humanity, will come to undo the failure of Adam, the dominion of Satan, the ruin of sin, and the curse of God.

Of course Genesis 3:15 is not explicitly quoted by Matthew, but to demand that such be the case is to import onto the Text an entirely subjective criteria for intertextual allusion. The Garden subcontext embedded in and surrounding the genealogy opens the ear of the reader to hear in Matthew’s inclusion of women in the genealogy the faint echo of the protoevangelion. The seed of the woman stands at the climactic heart of the Eden-story and Matthew’s echoes to the Garden would immediately import the promise as well. Matthew has thus situated the entire Garden-episode into the subcontext of His first chapter. Matthew’s “failure” to quote the Text directly is no argument that allusion to the Protoevangelion is not present, it proves only that Matthew, as an author, understands well the power of allusion. As Allison notes, “Allusions, which give us more to do and so heighten our attention, invite informed imaginations to make their own contributions. Meaning is infolded not to obscure but to improve communication. The implicit allows the pleasure of discovery, and readers who are invited to fill gaps appreciate authors who respect them enough not to shout.”¹⁵

More than verbal and thematic links, however, is the functional link between Biblical genealogies themselves and the promise of Genesis 3:15. That is to say, that Matthew would even construct a genealogy is in itself theologically telling. At an intertextual level, the inclusion of a genealogy only intensifies the literary/theological/typological link between Matthew and Genesis. As noted above Genesis is known for being “saturated with genealogical lists,”¹⁶ to the point that the entire narrative is structured by them. These genealogies in the LXX are introduced just as Matthew has here introduced his, with the Greek translation of תולדות, the phrase Βίβλος γενέσεως.

Though infamous for being notoriously dry, it is hard to overstate the hermeneutical and theological importance of genealogies in Scripture. Marshall’s lengthy survey of genealogy in Scripture concludes with the helpful exhortation that, “biblical genealogies are closely attached to their contexts and to the narrative in which they occur in regard to language, structure, and theology.”¹⁷ The theological import of the genealogies situated within the Genesis narrative, then, is not difficult to discern. At the heart of Genesis is the promise that the “seed of the woman” will crush the head of the “seed of the serpent,” undoing the curses of Genesis 3 and restoring humanity from its fallen state. Genesis 3:15 is at the very heart of Biblical genealogies because the redemptive promise is the promise of an expected seed, that is to say the promise is a genealogical promise. In other words, the hope of humanity is a genealogical hope.¹⁸

How then do genealogies function in the narrative of Genesis (and I would argue throughout Scripture)? In the words of Marshall they exhibit “a sense of movement within history toward a divine goal.”¹⁹ And what is that goal? The genealogico-redemptive goal of the “seed of the woman.” Thus with the Genesis/Garden-narrative firmly embedded into the narrative subcontext of Matthew 1 it is not difficult to see that the theological function of Matthew’s genealogy is clearly rooted in the genealogical hope for humanity; that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the seed of the serpent. Yet Matthew exceeds His predecessors in one point, He provides the identity of the seed, He is Jesus the “Son of Mary (the woman).” Again, could not the uniqueness of Matthew’s inclusion of multiple women in a theologically and intertextually charged genealogy only further intensify the allusion of the “seed of the woman” promise in Genesis 3:15? Matthew is climactically providing the canonical fulfillment of the Protoevangelion-reflecting תולדות formulas of Genesis. The “divine goal” of the genealogies of Scripture has been reached, the promised seed of the woman has come, the genealogical hope of humanity will be satisfied in Jesus.

So far we have seen Matthew’s unique inclusion of women in general coupled with the narrative subcontext of the Garden-story echoes the promise of Genesis 3:15 and thus identifies Jesus as the ancient genealogical hope of humanity. At a more particular level, however, one of the reasons each of these women was included is due to the fact that each, in their own Old Testament contexts, is related to the seed-promise of Genesis 3:15. This is, as noted above, not the only reason these women in particular were chosen for inclusion (i.e. they are all gentiles, they are connected to a sexual scandal, etc.) but it does lend further insight into the rationale behind Matthew’s choice of these particular women.²⁰ Each of these women is not a mere historical reference but intertextually imports into the genealogy their own redemptive-historical story within the canon. Thus I intend to show that Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba are each related, in their own Old Testament narrative, to the Protoevangelion.

Tamar

The “Joseph Story” constitutes the final section of Genesis. “Many of the themes of the Tanakh resound: persecution, exile and return, Israel’s being a blessing to the nations. But the key [theme] of genealogy…emerge[s] here”²¹ as well. These chapters (37-50) concentrate on three major characters; Joseph, Jacob, and Judah. It is helpful to note for the sake of a larger context that the narratives of each of these figures are woven in with the Genesis 3:15 promise.²² However, for the sake of time, I will only concentrate on Genesis 38’s record of Judah’s encounter with Tamar.

In Genesis 38 Judah takes a Canannite woman and with her has two sons, Er and Onan. Er is given Tamar as a wife but dies shortly thereafter, leaving Onan to fulfill to the role of raising up a “seed” (Gen. 38:8) for His brother. However, after Onan refuses to impregnate Tamar and is killed by YHWH, Tamar resorts to other means to bring up a “seed.” She disguises herself as a prostitute and seduces Judah to sleep with her, receiving as a pledge of payment his “signet, cord, and staff” (Gen. 38:18). After the discovery that Tamar is pregnant by prostitution, Judah, ironically, condemns her to death. However, after she presents the “signet, cord, and staff,” identifying Judah as the father of her baby, Judah exonerates her announcing, “She is more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26).

This sordid tale which would seem to fit more comfortably into the context of daytime television than the Word of God has two primary theological purposes. First, Tamar the Gentile is “more righteous” than her Hebrew family because of her faith in the promise of the “seed.” Whereas Judah and his two sons, Onan and Shelah are all complicit in withholding progeny from Tamar, she is determined to continue the line of Abraham. Though her actions were sinful, “had it not been for her ingenuity the promise would have been lost.”²³

Second, Tamar’s children are intimately related to the “staff” of Judah, which not only identifies Judah as the Father of these children but will also come to be a sign of the dominion and authority of the tribe of Judah. As Jacob blesses his sons just prior to His death he reveals that the eschatological hope resides in the progeny of Judah. “In the last days”²⁴ (Gen 49:1) Judah will reign over the nations.

Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father's sons shall bow down to you. Judah is a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, and as a lion, who dares rouse him up? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. He ties his foal to the vine, and his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, and his robes in the blood of grapes. His eyes are dull from wine, and his teeth white from milk (Gen 49:8-12).

The intertextual overlap with Genesis 3:15 is thick. The progeny of Judah will be a “warrior-king” who will place his hand on the neck of the enemies, administering a fatal head-wound to the enemies of God’s people. In other words the seed of Judah is the seed of the woman who will crush the seed of the serpent’s head. Jacob indicates that the result of this victory will be the obedience of all peoples and blessing to all the nations. More than that, it will result in produce and agricultural abundance. In a word, Jacob signifies that the seed of Judah will bring about a return to Edenic paradise. The staff given to Tamar as a pledge for sex will one day rule the nations in the hand of Judah’s seed.²⁵

Rahab

Scripture provides no record of Rahab’s conceptions or subsequent birth narratives. Thus, unlike Tamar, the subtext evoked by Rahab’s placement in the genealogy is not directly related to a genealogical narrative, but I will argue is nonetheless related to the “seed of the woman” hope of the Protoevangelion.

As explained above, the role of the seed of the woman is not the bare crushing of the serpent’s head but in that crushing there is the complete reversal of the Serpent’s work. That is, through judgment, God will bring about restoration and renewal. Eden will be retaken and the serpent will be cast out of God’s Garden. Rahab, is connected to this Protoevangelion-narrative by being God’s instrument through which that eschatological conflict is proleptically fulfilled. That is Rahab’s role in redemptive-history is to be part of what the book of Joshua describes as the reconquest of Eden.

The intertextual relationship between Joshua and Genesis 3:15 is rich.²⁶ As James Hamilton argues the center of the theology of Joshua is nothing less than the promise of the Protoevangelion, “it is a story of God’s glory in salvation through judgment.”²⁷ The Edenic intertext of the conquest is thick and the entire campaign is portrayed as the return to Eden. The Israelites come to the Promised Land through water (Josh. 3-4:11 cf. Gen. 1:2), and at the eastern border of the territory encounter an angel with a flaming sword (Josh. 5:13-15), recalling the angel standing guard at the border of the Garden (Gen. 3:24). However, unlike the condemning figure of Genesis 3 barring entrance into the Garden, the angel in the Joshua-narrative is going to lead the armies of Israel back into the land. The conquest ultimately leads to a climactic scene, when “the whole congregation of the sons of Israel assembled themselves at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting there; and the land was subdued before them” (Josh. 18:1).

The language is an obvious reappropriation of the Garden-Story. Israel, as God’s new humanity, is fulfilling the role of Adam: they are subduing the land (Gen. 1:28) in the presence of God.²⁸ This restoration of Eden comes through the promise of Gen. 3:15. Israel, (the seed of the woman) conquers by forcing the Canaanites (the seed of the serpent) into the serpentine-posture of prostration (Gen. 3:14) and then places their feet over their necks in victory (Josh. 10:24).

It is this Protoevangelion laden narrative in which we find Rahab,²⁹ and she is by no means peripheral. Rather her life is intimately interwoven into the conquest narrative. She stands at the very door of the Promised Land. Her faith unites her to the people of God and both saves her from judgment and saves the Israelite spies from the King of Jericho (Josh. 6:23-25). It is through this woman that the Israelites begin the retrieval of Eden. In fact she is the only woman in the narrative engaged in the work conquest. Thus, Matthew’s mention of Rahab, amidst many other evocations, would trigger in the minds of his readers the conquest narrative with which Rahab was so intimately involved.

Ruth

Paul House says of Ruth that “it is hard to imagine a book so short doing more to maintain the faith of the whole canon.”³⁰ At a more particular level, however, we can push even further and say that the major themes of Ruth are precisely those of Genesis 3:15-17. The implications of the curse on the land and childbearing set the background to Ruth’s narrative. As Hamilton notes,

The book opens with an outworking of the curse on the ground (Gen. 3:17): there is famine in the land (Ruth 1:1). This drives [Elimelech’s] family from Bethlehem into exile.³¹ Driven out of the Edenic promised land, the Bethlehemites are afflicted with difficulties akin to those promised in Genesis 3:16—not that childbearing is painful, it simply does not happen for ten years, and then the husbands [of Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah] die (Ruth 1:2-5).”³²

The story continues with Naomi and Ruth’s return to the Promised Land after hearing that the Lord had been visiting His people with food (Ruth 1:6), demonstrating God’s power to overcome the geographical curse. In Bethlehem, Ruth’s levirate marriage story echoes that of Tamar, a kinsman-redeemer refuses to perform his obligation and bring up children for his deceased relative (Ruth 4:6 cf. Gen. 38:1-11).³³ However, Boaz, a man of the tribe of Judah, redeems Ruth resulting in the reversal of the Genesis 3:16 curse; Ruth conceives and gives birth to a son (Ruth 4:13).³⁴

This conception is not an isolated incident devoid of theological meaning. The author brackets this conception in the larger redemptive story of Scripture. Ruth’s son is identified in the same stream of redemptive purposes as the patriarchal family (Ruth 4:11). She will give birth to one that will carry out the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:2-3). The hope of humanity is placed squarely in God’s geneaological promise, namely “the seed” to come.³⁵

The climax, however, of the entire book and what we might refer to as “the point” of Ruth’s narrative is the geneaological colophon which concludes the book. There we find that the destination toward which the narrative has been driving the reader is David, the genealogical hope of humanity. Again the Genesis subtext is unmistakably present in Ruth’s climactic ending. The inclusion of a genealogy, its ten-member structure (cf. Gen. 5:1-32; 11:10-26), and its introduction by way of the תולדות formula clearly evokes the themes of Genesis, particularly as they relate to the Garden-story, causing the reader to again have a sense of movement toward a divine-goal, the salvation from the curse that will come through the seed of the woman.³⁶

Bathsheba

The Davidic monarchy’s intertextual relationship with the Eden-story and the Genesis 3:15 promise is overwhelming. The confines of this argument will therefore only allow the briefest survey of the data and Bathsheba’s role in the Davidic story. David’s grand entrance into salvation-history occurs when he enters the scene as the warrior-king who delivers a head wound to God’s enemy (i.e. seed of the serpent), Goliath (1 Sam. 17:49-51). From that moment the entire dynasty is marked by the reappropriation of language originally used to describe Adam,³⁷ the Garden,³⁸ and the Protoevangelion.³⁹ The Davidic reflection in 2 Sam. 22 (and its repetition in Ps. 18) is just one of many places in the narrative that casts the entire Davidic-story in such a way that it reflects the Eden-story.⁴⁰

Bathsheba’s entrance into the story brings the note of discord into the harmony of David’s reign. The king’s sin with Bathsheba ultimately leads to the murder of Uriah, the death of their first child, the disintegration of relationships in David’s family, the rape of Tamar, the murder and treason of Absalom, as well as David’s temporary expulsion from the Jerusalem throne. Never again does David experience the Edenic “rest” he once enjoyed in 2 Samuel 7:1. However, Bathsheba’s role is not merely to bring judgment but also hope, the hope of a “seed.” In the midst of turmoil, Bathsheba gives birth to one whom YHWH calls “Jedidiah,” that is “Beloved of YHWH.”⁴¹ Through Bathsheba then comes the geneaological hope of the next Davidic king who will carry out the Edenic-purposes of David’s reign by building the temple of YHWH and bringing stability (that is rest), Davidic dominion, and the restoration of Edenic serenity to the Israelite empire (2 Kings 4:24-25). Bathsheba thus gives birth to one who plays the role of a new Adam, a Seed of the woman, who restores, in part, the edenic-state.

Returning then to Matthew’s genealogy, it is entirely plausible that Matthew’s unique inclusion of women in general, and his inclusion of these women in particular is intended to evoke the message of the Protoevangelion. These women bring with them their own Genesis 3:15-laden subtext into the genealogy calling the reader, along with the other Genesis allusions, back to the Eden-story. This all, of course, culminates in the Mary story which concludes the genealogy and is recorded in greater detail in the following pericope. Mary is the woman who will give birth to the Seed. The geneaology concludes with the striking and ambiguous statement, “Jacob gave birth to Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born” (v. 16). This statement is then further clarified as Matthew moves from the macro-perspective of Jesus’ “genesis” to a more microscopic analysis. The birth narrative in 1:18ff reveals Jesus as born of a virgin. Thus the paradoxical statement “seed of the woman” comes to consummate fulfillment in Jesus (cf. Gal. 4:4). With the voices of Genesis 1-3 echoing throughout these first two pericopae it is difficult not to see Mary as the woman giving birth to “her Seed.”

Matthean studies would be benefited by a more thorough analysis of the Evangelists intertextuality with the Protoevangelion. The Genealogy is one such instance where, I believe, Matthew has provided for his readers an extra layer of “bonus meaning”⁴² which evokes the Genesis 3:15 promise. Matthew’s use of the Protoevangelion could also shed light on the many of the macro-themes running through the Gospel. For example, much of Jesus’ confrontation with the Jewish leadership is cast in such a way as to evoke the rivalry between “seed of the serpent” and “seed of the woman.” Both Jesus and John the Baptist refer to the leadership as γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (“children of vipers” - Matt. 3:7; 12:34; 23:33) and ὄφεις (“serpents” - 23:33).⁴³ Further, Matthew redacts his narrative in such a way that the Jewish leadership reflects the Satanic agenda in Matthew 4:1-11.⁴⁴ Further, if there is intertextual connection with Genesis 3:15 throughout the Gospel it would intensify Matthew’s Sitz im Leben, Christology, and New People of God macro-themes, demonstrating that God’s purposes have always pre-dated and have been greater than Israel. YHWH’s first and foremost redemptive purpose is to bring to fulfillment the Genesis 3:15 promise, namely to redeem the cosmos and make a new humanity.

___________________________________________

¹ Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 346. Stated more simply in the words of Jonathan Pennington, “When Matthew is cut he bleeds Bible.” Jonathan Pennington, “Refraction of Greek Daniel in the Gospel of Matthew” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality Volume 1: Thematic Studies, eds. Craig Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 65.

² Richard Hays, “The Canonical Matrix of the Gospel” in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed. Stephen Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 53.

³ Or in the case of Bathsheba, she is a Jew but Matthew intentionally identifies her with her husband Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3). See D.A. Carson, Matthew, in vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, eds. Frank E. Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 66.

⁴ While many would argue against any sort of sexual misconduct in Ruth, it seems all must at least agree that there is enough both explicitly stated in the text and at the same time left ambiguous to make the reader slightly uneasy about what took place at the threshing floor.

⁵ Carson, Matthew, 66.

⁶ I believe the promise of Gen. 3:15 is echoed throughout the Matthew’s gospel but cannot develop that thought in this paper, but only provide brief allusions to the Protoevangelion’s influence in the conclusion of this paper. Also these words from D.A. Carson are helpful to consider as well in regard to my thesis; “I frequently tell my doctoral students as they embark on their research that dissertations in the broad field of the arts disciplines, including biblical and theological disciplines, can, at the risk of slight oversimplification, be divided into two camps. In the first camp, the student begins with an idea, a fresh insight, a thesis he or she would like to test against the evidence. In the second, the student has no thesis to begin with but would like to explore the evidence in a certain domain to see exactly what is going on in a group texts and admits to uncertainty about what the outcome will be. The advantage of the first kind of thesis is that the work is exciting from the beginning and directed by the thesis that is being tested; the danger is that, unless the student takes extraordinary precautions and proves to be remarkably self-critical, the temptation to domesticate the evidence in order to defend the thesis becomes well-nigh irresistible. The advantage of the second kind of thesis is that it is likely to produce more even-handed results than the first, since the researcher has no axe to grind and is therefore more likely to follow the evidence wherever it leads; the danger is that there may not be much of a thesis at the end of the process, but merely a lot of well-organized data. In reality, of course, dissertation projects regularly straddle both camps in various ways.” See D.A. Carson, review of Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, by Chris VanLandingham, Review of Biblical Literature 12 (2007). Recognizing the dangers of eisegesis, my paper falls very much into Carson’s first category.

⁷ Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-32. The seven criteria are (1) Availability. Was the proposed source of echo available to the author and/or original readers? (2) Volume. The degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patters. Also distinctiveness or prominence of the subtext in the rest of Scripture and rhetorical stress received in the discourse. (3) Recurrence. How often the passage is cited or alluded to. (4) Thematic Coherence. How well the alleged echo fits into the line of argument that the author is developing. (5) Historical Plausibility. Could the author have intended the alleged meaning effect? Could his readers have understood it? (6) History of Interpretation. Other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes. (7) Satisfaction. With or without clear confirmation from other criteria the proposed meaning makes sense.

⁸ G.K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2008), 25.

⁹ Richard Hays, Conversion of the Imagination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005) 2-3.

¹⁰ W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew 1-7, International Critical Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 187.

¹¹ Carson, Matthew, 62.

¹² John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 531.

¹³ Charles Thomas Davis, “The Fulfillment of Creation: A Study of Matthew’s Genealogy,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41, no. 4 (1973): 12. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1985), 110. etc.

¹⁴ Jonathan T. Pennington, “Heaven, Earth, and a New Genesis: Theological Cosmology in Matthew” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, eds. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough (London, T&T Clark, 2008), 28-44.

¹⁵ Dale Allison, Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 76. It is also helpful to note G.K. Beale’s brief discussion on discerning allusions where the author is not “explicit” in his intentions. “Some may still wonder, however, whether an author has intended to make a particular allusion, and they may ask, If the author really intended to convey all the meaning from an Old Testament text for which I am contending, should he not have made the explanation and the links with that text more explicit? In some of these cases I would allow for the possibility that later authors (like Paul) may have merely presupposed the Old Testament association in their mind, since they were such deep and long-experienced readers of the Old Testament Scriptures. This would not mean that there is no semantic link with the Old Testament text under discussion, but rather that the author was either unconscious of making the reference or was not necessarily intending his audience to pick up on the allusion or echo. In either case, identification of the reference and enhancement of meaning that comes from the context of the source text may well disclose the author's underlying or implicit presuppositions, which form the basis for his explicit statements in the text.” (Beale, We Become What We Worship, 25).

¹⁶ Stephen Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson, vol. 15 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 47.

¹⁷ Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1969), 253.

¹⁸ This hope and Adam’s faith in the promise is reflected in his naming of the woman Eve, “the Mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20).

¹⁹ Johnson, 80.

²⁰ This is not to say, of course, that other women in the Old Testament were not intimately associated with the seed promise of Genesis 3:15 in their own narratives, for many others were (i.e. Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, etc). Rather, these particular women were chosen because they develop Matthew’s argument along multiple lines in which, it seems, only they could.

²¹ Dempster, 88. emphasis added.

²² Also with the Protoevangelion’s recapitulated development and expansion in the Abrahamic Covenant. For evidence that each of these figures are intertextually related to the Protoevangelion. See Dempster, 88-92.

²³ Ibid., 90.

²⁴ This appears to be the first use of a technical designation in the Old Testament which refers to the eschatological era. See Dempster, 90.

²⁵ Ibid., 91.

²⁶ See Dempster, 126-130. James Hamilton, “The Center of Biblical Theology: The Glory of God in Salvation through Judgment” (Crossway: Forthcoming), 3:6-17.

²⁷ Hamilton, “The Center of Biblical Theology,” 3:17.

²⁸ For a helpful treatment on Eden being the temple/dwelling place of God see G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson, vol. 17 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

²⁹ The repetitive identification of Rahab as a זנה (“harlot”) provides an interesting verbal connection with Tamar (Gen 38:15). The author may be intending that we read their narratives in light of each other.

³⁰ Paul House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 462.

³¹ Hamilton is here dependent on Dempster, 191.

³² Hamilton, “The Center of Biblical Theology,” 4:38-39.

³³ The Text posits an interesting connection between Tamar and Ruth. Ruth 4:12 both unites the story of Tamar to Ruth while at the same time identifying the Tamar story as a development of the seed-purpose of God (i.e the Gen. 3:15-purpose) promised through the patriarchal family.

³⁴ Hamilton, “The Center of Biblical Theology,” 4:39.

³⁵ This is powerfully described by Rauber, “But while [Ruth 4:13] itself is simple and unadorned, the author has taken steps to ensure that its importance will not be missed. He does this by bracketing it between two passages of evocative splendor, by making it part of a complex construction. Preceding is a noble recollection of past glory: ‘The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel’ (v. 11). Our minds fill with the whole of the patriarchal past, and this reinforces the fullness theme, for it brings to mind the strong patriarchal emphases on fertility and ‘the seed.’ In addition, by positing so direct a parallel between Ruth and the mighty figure of Rachel, the artist has broken out of his small domestic world into the mainstream of the historical and imaginative splendor of Israel. This expansion into the past is carefully matched on the other side of the key verse by an equal burst of glory in the future: ‘and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David’ (v. 17). The whole construction is a double cone in which a large past is made to focus in on the simple birth; then, from the focal point of that birth expands an equally large future.” (D.F. Rauber, “The Book of Ruth” in Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narratives, eds. Kenneth Gros Louis, James Ackerman, and Thayer Warshaw (New York: Abingdon Press, 1974), 172.

³⁶ Ruth’s function in the narrative flow of the Canon only heightens the significance of the concluding genealogy as well as intensifies its intertextual connection with the Gen. 3:15 promise. Ruth is canonically situated in the Ketuvim and thus enters the Biblical narrative at just the point where the reader would be asking, “What will become of the Davidic monarchy in exile?” The book, however, is not a post-exilic narrative but rather a kind of “canonical flashback” which takes the reader back to the time of the Judges. Thus the climactic Davidic genealogy at the end of the book is not merely forward looking to what has happened but propels the reader forward to an eschatological hope. Thus, just as in Elimelech’s day it seemed the Davidic line was in hopeless trouble in exile, so now, though the king and his people may be in exile, the reader should see that this cannot thwart the Davidic purposes of God (Dempster, 193). God’s sovereign work will lead to a Davidide/Seed who will rule the nations. Troughout Scripture David and his heirs (including the coming Davidide) are intimately associated with the Seed-promise of Genesis 3:15 and its reappropriation and development in the Abrahamic Covenant.

³⁷ See, for example the strong connection between the Davidic figure of Psalm 2-7, flanked by the inclusio of the ideal man (i.e. Adam) in Psalms 1 and 8. See also the Adamic-Kingship connection in 2 Sam. 23:2-4.

³⁸ 2 Sam. 7:1-7. See Hamilton “The Center of Biblical Theology,” 3:34-35.

³⁹ Ps. 72:9.

⁴⁰ Dempster, 144-145.

⁴¹ Hamilton, “The Center of Biblical Theology,” 3:39.

⁴² R.T. France, “The Formula-Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of Communication,” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 233-251.

⁴³ This is the same word used in Genesis. Davies and Allison argue that in Matthew 23 “an allusion to Genesis 3 is unlikely.” W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew 19-28. International Critical Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 307. However, Davies and Allison fails to provide any evidence as to why we should not see here an intertextual connection with Genesis 3.

⁴⁴ For example, the Jewish leadership is often verbally associated with “the tempter” (ὁ πειράζων) of Matthew 4 (Matt. 16:1; 19:3; 22:18; 22:35). Notice also the that very climax of the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership is structured by three “tests/temptation” (Matthew 22:15-40 cf. Matt. 4:1-11) immediately followed by Jesus accusation that the Scribes and Pharisees are γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (“children of vipers”) and ὄφεις (“serpents”) in 23:33. Even further, this Genesis 3:15-reflecting accusation is developed by Jesus in such a way that he condemns the scribes and Pharisees for being guilty of the blood of Abel, which in Genesis serves as the immediate outworking of the Seed of the Woman/Seed of the Serpent conflict.

_____________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, Dale. Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Bauer, David, and Mark Allan Powell, eds. Treasures New and Old: Contributions to Matthean Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996.

Beale, G.K. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

_________. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson, no. 17. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Carson, D.A. Matthew. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas. Vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

_________. Review of Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, by Chris VanLandingham. Review of Biblical Literature 12 (2007).

Davies, W.D. and D.C. Allison. Matthew 1-7. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 1988.

_________. Matthew 19-28. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 1997.

Davis, Charles Thomas. “The Fulfillment of Creation: A Study of Matthew’s Genealogy.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41, no. 4 (1973): 520-535.

Dempster, Stephen. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D.A. Carson, no. 15. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Evans, Craig, and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds. Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality Volume 1: Thematic Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

_________. Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality Volume 2: Exegetical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Fesko, J.V. Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology. Glasgow: Christian Focus Publications, 2007.

France, R.T. “The Formula-Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of Communication.” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 233-251.

_________. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007.

_________. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1989.

Freed, Edwin. “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 3-19.

Garland, David. Reading Matthew. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1993.

Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1993.

Hamilton, James. “The Center of Biblical Theology: The Glory of God in Salvation through Judgment.” Crossway, Forthcoming.

_________. “The Glory of God in Salvation Through Judgment: The Centre of Biblical Theology?” Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 57-84.

_________. “The Seed of the Womand and the Blessing of Abraham.” Tyndale Bulletin 58, no. 2 (2007): 253-273.

_________. “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10, no. 2 (2006): 30-54.

Hays, Richard, “The Canonical Matrix of the Gospel” in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, edited by Stephen Barton, 53-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

_________. Conversion of the Imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.

_________. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Hays, Richard, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.

Hill, Charles, and Frank A. James III, eds. The Glory of the Atonement. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Huizenga, Leroy. The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew. Boston: Brill, 2009.

Hutchison, John C. “Women, Gentiels, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy.” Bibleotheca Sacra 158 (April-June 2001): 152-164.

Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, 2d ed. Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1969.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1985.

Nolland, John. “The Four (Five) Women and Other Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy.” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 527-539.

_________. “Genealogical Annotation in Genesis as Background for the Matthean Genealogy of Jesus.” Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 1 (1996), 115-122.

_________. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.

Pennington, Jonathan T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

_________. “Heaven, Earth, and the New Genesis: Theological Cosmology in Matthew” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, edited by Jonathan Pennington and Sean M. McDonough, 28-44. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

Porter, Stanley, ed. The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007.

Rauber, D.F., “The Book of Ruth” in Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narratives, edited by Kenneth Gros Louis, James Ackerman, and Thayer Warshaw, 163-176. New York: Abingdon Press, 1974.

Stanton, Graham N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

Waetjen, Herman C. “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95, no. 2 (1976): 205-230.

Wright, N.T. Matthew for Everyone: Part One. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

What I Just Finished Reading

2009-12-05T15:33:00.000-08:00

ApParent Privilege by Steve Wright with Chris Graves