Interpretation

An Argument Against Academic Elitism from a Young Academic

~ Jessica Parks ~ 5 Comments

This is not to discredit biblical scholars and theologians with academic training–these are, after all, the people I look up to as a young scholar. There is obviously a very real benefit to formal scholastic training when it comes to biblical interpretation. If I didn’t think so, I wouldn’t have spent the last decade in an academic setting learning from biblical scholars and theologians shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to do so. I am speaking as an academic (a baby though I might be). However much credibility a Bachelors degree in Biblical Languages and Christianity, a Master’s degree in Biblical Languages, and 15 additional graduate hours in Theological Studies with a half-written thesis might give me, I am speaking as one how has academic training. And from this perspective I still argue that academics do not have a monopoly on the biblical texts. There is no room for academic elitism when it comes to reading the scared scriptures; the spirit of elitism does not exist alongside the Holy Spirit and the work the Spirit does in whom the Spirit desires. So, while formal scholastic training is beneficial to the individual reader of scripture, the lack thereof does not automatically disqualify one from the ability to grasp the biblical texts nor should it automatically disqualify one’s contributions to a discussion or argument or whatever.

Does not the Holy Spirit play the primary role in our ability to read and understand the scriptures?

Despite what some might assume, I would not argue that any and every interpretation is credible. For one, I prefer the language used in theological interpretation of “better” readings rather than correct or accurate. I might even differentiate between plausible and implausible readings. Furthermore, I am not arguing that the best way to read the Bible is alone in isolation with just you and the Holy Spirit. To the contrary, I actually believe that to read Scripture well we need to read it in conversation with tradition and with the church, not alone in a vacuum.

What I ultimately take issue with is the idea that someone can automatically be disqualified not based on their arguments and/or methods, but on their pedigree or lack thereof. This is a shame, it reeks of academic elitism and arrogance, and does not take into account the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual believer as well as the wide access we have to information today.

A PhD does not guarantee someone is a good reader of scripture. Unless you’re N.T. Wright, of course.

– Jessica Parks (written in 2015)

 

Ascension: The Locus of Atonement in Hebrews

~ Mike Skinner ~ 3 Comments

David Moffitt made his mark on the world of biblical studies with his impressive dissertation “Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In it, he argues against the long-standing viewpoint that Jesus’ resurrection plays little role in the soteriology of the book of Hebrews. Most modern scholars have seen the crucifixion, through the lens of a sacrificial typology, as the primary place and moment of Jesus’ atoning work. Moffitt largely builds on the work of Old Testament scholars who have proven that 1) the atonement accomplished by blood offerings like Yom Kippur were not focused on the actual slaughter of the animal but on the presentation/sprinkling of the blood and that 2) the blood represents the life of the sacrifice and not its death. Thus, using a typology of Yom Kippur, Jesus’ sacrifice triggers a series of events that leads to atonement, but is itself not sufficient or primary in the accomplishment of atonement. Moffitt uses these conclusions to argue for the primacy and importance of the resurrection in the book of Hebrews (see a good summary and review here).

While I think Moffitt is largely on the right track and much of his exegetical work on Hebrews is incredibly important, I can’t help but wonder if there is a glaring flaw in his conclusion. That is, Jesus’ bodily resurrection does not guarantee or accomplish atonement (in Hebrews itself or in Moffitt’s reading of Hebrews). It is the ascension of the bodily resurrected Christ into Heaven which does this – as he presents his blood in the actual Holy of Holies. A post-crucifixion embodied life is certainly necessary for this, but is itself just an event in the process which leads to the atonement. A resurrected Jesus, still walking around on earth, has not truly accomplished atonement according to the typology utilized in the book of Hebrews. At many points, Moffitt seems to recognize and appreciate this, yet it never seems to make a big enough impression to truly shape his conclusion.

I preached a sermon series last year on the doctrine of the Ascension, a doctrine that is mind-bogglingly  overlooked by many churches and theologians. Western churches and theologians usually tack the Ascension on as an afterthought to the Resurrection (at best), without giving thought to the specific theological work that it accomplishes and continues to accomplish in the theo-drama of God’s redemptive plan through Christ and the Spirit.  As I studied and prepared for the series, I realized how little I knew about the biblical and theological significance of the Ascension and, even more sadly, how little significant scholarship has been written about it.

However, Hebrews stands out among all of our canonical literature as exalting the Ascension as the praiseworthy and effectual moment of atonement. In fact, the data made me go back and listen to a sermon series I preached through the book of Hebrews years before and, to my embarrassment, I practically overlooked (or downplayed) the endless references to the Ascension. Like the scholars Moffitt critiques, my attention was so focused on the crucifixion (largely because of a poor understanding of the levitical sacrificial system) that I could hardly muster the cognitive or theological energy to look anywhere else.

Now, however, not only do I see the importance of the resurrection in the book of Hebrews – I also see the locus of atonement as happening in heaven at the time of the ascension. Why do we give so little attention to the  ascension as opposed to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus? Maybe because it is more theological and metaphysical? Maybe because we’ve overlooked its importance in the Scriptures? Regardless, I can no longer deny this truth: THE ASCENSION MATTERS. While the incarnation, life and ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus are all vitally important to God’s work of salvation and to our faith – the ascension must be understood as equally important and praiseworthy.

What do you think?

Have you noticed a tendency in churches or theology to overlook or downplay the importance of Jesus’ ascension?
If so, why do you think that is?

Do you agree that perhaps there is more biblical and theological weight put on the work of Jesus’ ascension than is often recognized?

Where else, other than Hebrews, might we be downplaying the importance of the ascension in the canonical literature?

Book Review: Language for God in Patristic Tradition (Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism)

~ Mike Skinner ~ 3 Comments

Mark Sheridan has truly given the world a gift with his51lXsMiBYDL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_ recent publication, Language for God in Patristic Tradition, published by IVP Academic. I’ve used the book as a resource for a previous post – Cassiodorus on the Violence in Psalm 137 – and am thrilled to now offer a full review. During my time as a graduate student, I became very interested in patristic theology and hermeneutics. I was always particularly interested in how they dealt with biblical “anthropomorphisms” which might conflict with a classical theist’s view of God as un-changing, all-knowing, and more. With this book, Sheridan expertly navigates the reader through the interpretive strategies of the early church Fathers as they wrestled with our sacred texts.

The explicit goal of the book is to show how ancient Christian theologians understood the problem of certain presentations of God that attributed human characteristics and emotions to the divine and to detail how they dealt with it. To accomplish this task, Sheridan provides the reader with plenty of primary texts from patristic writers along with detailed expositions of their interpretations. He continually draws on authors such as the Alexandrians, Clement, Origen, Didymus, Chrysostom, and more. The heart of his discovery: there is a widely used double-criterion for interpreting the difficult texts of Scripture: 1] It must be useful to humans (since it was written by God and preserved by the Spirit for the spiritual maturity of the church) and 2] it must be “worthy of God” – that is, it must be read in light of certain truths about God that were already known. The early Christians drew some of their criteria for what is worthy of God from Plato and other Greek philosophers but also, and primarily, from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Three case studies are offered in the book to illustrate how ancient authors used this hermeneutical strategy:
A. The Creation Story (saturated with anthropomorphisms)
B. The Story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar (which seems to condone adultery)
C. The Conquest Narratives of Joshua (which seems at odd with Jesus’ life and teachings)

The case studies show that the early Christians were not shy about addressing the problem of the divine nature as presented in problematic texts. I particularly enjoyed the way that the Church Fathers interpreted the violent conquest stories in light of the divine love of humanity revealed in Jesus Christ. The two criterion led them to allegorical interpretations – readings that would not be considered appropriate to a historical-grammatical exegete. However, these theological readings (interpretations made in light of their understanding of the nature of God) are often beautiful and perhaps more faithful to the overall narrative of Scripture than modern alternatives. Sheridan also offers a chapter on how the Church Fathers read the many disturbing images in the Psalms – an interesting and incredibly fruitful exercise.

I’ve been an outspoken proponent of theological exegesis for years now and found myself encouraged by the data presented in this book. I was happy, and a little surprised, to see just how much the patristic writers used the revelation of Jesus as an interpretive tool – something I have advocated for as well. Sheridan has clearly mastered this material and the result is an interesting, engaging, and convincing presentation of the interpretive strategy of the early church writers when it came to problematic texts in the Scriptures. Lastly, his very precise and brief appendix on the presuppositions, criteria, and rules employed in Ancient Christian Hermeneutics is worth the price of the book itself. It will be standard reading for all of my classes that discuss the different methods of interpretation throughout Christian history.

I highly recommend this book for:
– courses on the patristic writers or on hermeneutics in general
– those interested in patristics or hermeneutics
– those troubled with “problem texts” in the Scriptures
– those interested in the way we use language to speak about God
– preachers
(In his foreword, Thomas C. Oden writes, “This book will keep the preaching pastor out of a whole lot of trouble. Constantly in biblical teaching we use human language to speak of God, knowing very well that God transcends human speech. We may stumble over the Bible’s words if we are unaware of how profoundly the classic Christian tradition has examined this question. This book gives the ordinary reader access to that wisdom.” I couldn’t agree more.)

Note: I received this book from IVP Academic in exchange for an unbiased review.

Cyril of Alexandria on Reading Scripture Christologically

~ Mike Skinner ~ 1 Comment

A quote from Cyril which comes after he explores the similarities and differences between Jesus and Jonah:

“Thus just as bees in the field, when flitting about the flowers, always gather up what is useful for the provision of the hives, so we also, when searching in the divinely inspired Scriptures, need always to be collecting and collating what is perfect for explicating Christ’s mysteries and to interpret the Word fully without cause for rebuke.”
– Cyril of Alexandria, Fragment 162; MKGK 205

Jesus Misquoting Scripture . . . On Purpose?

~ Mike Skinner ~ 5 Comments

How well did Jesus actually know his Bible?

This isn’t a common question posed by Christians, but it is one that the end of Mark 2 forces upon the reader. In Mark 2:25-26, Jesus re-tells a biblical story as part of a confrontation with the Pharisees. However, his version of the story is riddled with . . . mistakes?

Jesus’ biblical reference comes in response to the questioning of the Pharisees concerning his disciples’ activity of picking grain on the Sabbath. He returns their question (“Why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”) with another question, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”

Jesus seems to be referencing a tale found in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. The problem is that Samuel’s version of this story is significantly different from Jesus’ version. In Samuel’s narrative, David was by himself. There is no mention of hunger. David does not enter the house of God. The priest was Ahimelech, not Abiathar.

Most Christian interpreters try to smooth over the differences between the versions of the story presented in 1 Samuel and Mark 2. These efforts are, in my evaluation, usually unsatisfying. But there is another, perhaps more creative, interpretive possibility.

What if Jesus misremembers this tale on purpose? What if his misquotation is an ironic jab at the Pharisees?

This is the conclusion that theologian William Placher reaches:
“Is this all a joke? A mistake? By Jesus? By Mark? Mark so rarely misremembers texts that I doubt he is doing so here. I infer, then, that the point of his reply is to show that these Pharisees, eager to burden the common people with the details of the Law, are actually so ignorant of Scripture that they do not notice one misquotation after another. Such matters have not altogether changed, and those who quote a particular biblical passage as a means of condemnation often turn out not to know its context or relation to other biblical texts.” (William Placher, Mark: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 51)

My experience does confirm that those who use religion or religious clobber-texts to condemn other people usually are not very familiar with the sacred texts they hold so dear. This reading is further supported if Placher is right and Mark rarely “misremembers texts.” Why doesn’t Mark (or a later scribe) spot and correct Jesus’ mistake? Why do Matthew and Luke carry over these mistakes (Matthew 12 and Luke 6)?
Perhaps they caught the irony in Jesus’ response.

What do you think? 
Are you convinced by Placher’s interpretation?
If not, how do you reconcile the two texts and Jesus’ apparent mistake/ignorance?