I’m teaching a course at my church this winter on “Old Testament Ethics: Principles of Living for the People of God.” Here is the website for the course, which contains links to the Powerpoint slides and other supplemental material. Feel free to use any of the materials under a Creative Commons Attribution license if you find them helpful.
This is an excellent video from N.T. Wright. I think he’s right that faithful readings of the text must try to disentangle the text from our prior cultural and political assumptions and battles.
Mike Bird at Euangelion posted this quote from Origen’s Commentary on John. What I love about snippets like this is that we can see how great pre-modern Christian thinkers wrestled with concerns that continue to confront us in Biblical studies today, and we can see that what are sometimes criticized as post-modern approaches in fact are rooted deeply in the Tradition:
“The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider that their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found in any way in John’s narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it was that the Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the period of His baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cans of Galilee, then it is clear that the temptation never took place, and that He never was at Nazara, and that John was not yet delivered up. Now, after Capernaum, where He abode not many days, the passover of the Jews was at hand, and He went up to Jerusalem, where He cast the sheep and oxen out of the temple, and poured out the small change of the bankers. In Jerusalem, too, it appears that Nicodemus, the ruler and Pharisee, first came to Him by night, and heard what we may read in the Gospel. “After these things, Jesus came, and His disciples, into the land of Judaea, and there He tarried with them and baptized, at the same time at which John also was baptizing in AEnon near Salim, because there were many waters there, and they came and were baptized; for John was not yet cast into prison.” On this occasion, too, there was a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with the Jews about purification, and they came to John, saying of the Saviour. “Behold, He baptizeth, and all come to Him.” They had heard words from the Baptist, the exact tenor of which it is better to take from Scripture itself. Now, if we ask when Christ was first in Capernaum, our respondents, if they follow the words of Matthew, and of the other two, will say, After the temptation, when, “leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea.” But how can they show both the statements to be true, that of Matthew and Mark, that it was because He heard that John was delivered up that He departed into Galilee, and that of John, found there, after a number of other transactions, subsequent to His stay at Capernaum, after His going to Jerusalem, and His journey from there to Judaea, that John was not yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in Aenon near Salim? There are many other points on which the careful student of the Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree; and these we shall place before the reader, according to our power, as they occur. The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought for in the outward and material letter.”
This recent commentary on Pete Enns’ blog, I think, hits the nail on the head:
I have said this on other occasions and it bears repeating: the tensions in conservative American Christianity that began in earnest in the 19th century were not so much “caused” by higher-critical scholarship, but by the clash of some very legitimate newer insights into the Bible (e.g., pentateuchal authorship, the ANE background to Genesis, etc., etc., etc.) with older theological paradigms that were not suited to address these newer insights. I understand that the matter is a bit more complicated than I lay out here, but the general contours are clear to me. The resulting liberal/fundamentalist divide was perhaps an inevitable perfect storm, but neither option does justice to the rich possibilities before us.
If I may continue a rather reductionistic analysis (which is not accurate on the level of historical analysis, but is alive and well, nonetheless—indeed, perpetuated—in some popular circles): liberals looked at our developing knowledge of the ancient world of the Bible and said “A ha, I told you. The Bible is nothing special. Israelite religion is just like any other ancient faith. You conservatives need to get over yourselves.” The fundamentalist response was (fingers firmly planted in ears) “La la la la la la, I do not hear you. There may be a millimeter of insight in some of what you are saying, but if what you are saying is true, our theology—which is the sure truth of Scripture, handed down through the ages—is false, and that is unthinkable.”
Battle lines were drawn rather than theological and hermeneutical principles reassessed.
“Neither option does justice to the rich possibilities before us.” Exactly.
This is very cool: an online repository for the full text of the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest (4th C.) and most complete copies of the Greek New Testament and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). The Codex Sinaiticus is significant for the history of formation of the Biblical Canon, the continuity of the text, and the editorial process by which those who produced the Codex shaped the authoritative text. These last two points — continuity and editorial process — obviously are somewhat in tension. The “Bible” was not invented by later scribes — serious scholarly effort was invested in accurately transmitting the collection of texts that were important to the Christian community. But neither did the “Bible” drop from the sky fully-formed. Even in the fourth century, Codex Sinaiticus evidences some degree of editorial flexiblity in the scribal community, as well as a broader view about which texts should be maintained together (the C.S. includes “apocryphal” books such as 2 Esdras as well as Christian epistles that are not included in the canon, such as the Epistle of Barnabas).
This is a fantastic set of interviews with evangelical and non-evangelicals on faith and Biblical scholarship. The comments by Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, and Michael Bird are very helpful.
This continues my conversation with Daniel Harrell, author of “Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith.” Daniel is a long-time Pastor at Park Street Church in Boston, MA. Park Street is an historic evangelical church.
Dave: Concerning the image of God, you mention Wolfhart Pannenberg. I notice that in the book you make a few references to Jourgen Moltmann. Most evangelical readers will be unfamiliar with these names. I suspect that the few who have heard of them will associate them with theological liberalism, and worse, with panentheism and process theology. But anyone who serioiusly studies Christian faith and the natural sciences will need to grapple with Pannenberg and Moltmann. So:
Do you see any dangers in Pannenberg’s and/or Moltmann’s concepts of God and creation? How (if at all) would you distinguish your understanding of God and His relation to creation from their views? Or, maybe a better way to put this: do you think Pannenberg and Moltmann’s views of God and creation are consistent with Nicene orthodoxy, or is some version of patripassionism required for a Christian understanding of evolution?
Daniel: You might want to elucidate which views of Pannenberg and Moltmann you mean (they write pretty extensively on God and creation!). As for patripassionism, its rejection, I think, presumes too strong a categorical understanding of the Trinity than is demanded. In other words, that Jesus is God who dies on the cross while the Father is God who receives his prayer and expends his wrath is nevertheless both God who atones and God who satisfies. Moltmann, to my recollection, does not suggest that God the Father is crucified, but rather God the Son who is one with the Father is crucified. (If this isn’t Moltmann’s position then it is mine and one that squares with Nicene orthodoxy . “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5.19). ). This is an important distinction as well as one of those Trinitarian realities that defy logic.
That this is necessary for embracing evolution entails recognizing that death has been part of organic life from the beginning (whether you believe in six-days or six billion years). And thus nature as characteristic of God entails a God for whom death is part of his character. I think Moltmann’s “crucified God” (albeit in the ways I interpret above) would provide for such a God.
Dave: Specifically on the image of God in humanity, Pannenberg says in his Systematic Theology that “[i]n the story of the human race, then, the image of God was not achieved fully at the outset. It was still in process. . . . If we think of the divine likeness as being already achieved in Adam’s first estate, we cannot view it as our final destiny in a process of history.” Can you explain a little more how you apply this sort of theory from Pannenberg to your theology of human nature?
Daniel: Not having Pannenberg in front of me, I nevertheless read the quotation as emphasizing that the image of God cannot be attained as a process of history because it is an act of God. “New creation” can never be a product of evolution. I assert that our ultimate “image of God” is attained by the redemptive work of Jesus, which was part of the original plan (Rev 13:8–KJV). Evolution points to a very good but incomplete creation that groans as it awaits its redemption, even from the beginning. God created a free process creation that resulted in free willed creatures who freely rejected God’s overtures and thus made redemption necessary. As a God who loves sacrificially, he always had redemption in mind, even at creation. (Just don’t ask me why. Although it does help explain how it is that Adam could have ever sinned in the first place.)
These are some materials I’m putting together for a study on Lamentations.
Introductory Questions:
What places, institutions, etc. might we think of as holding a symbolic place in our hearts and minds as did the city of Jerusalem to the Judahites?
Why do you think “the city” occupies such a central place in Lamentations? Can you think of other places in scripture where “city” is an important concept? Why do you think this might be so?
Have you ever felt “deserted,” “betrayed,” or “bitter”? Why? How did you express and deal with those feelings?
What do you think about the role of public lament in our culture? For example, what would a “service of lamentation” look like in one of our local churches? Why don’t we like to talk about or practice lament?
Some important background:
Lamentations is comprised of a group of poems concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. by the Babylonians. It is unclear who wrote these poems, although most scholars agree that the writer or writers probably had been left behind in the area of Jerusalem after its destruction. It has traditionally been held that the writer is the prophet Jeremiah.
Jerusalem had been seen as the spiritual, political and economic center of the kingdom of Judah. It was the location of a magnificent temple to God built by King Solomon. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians was the devastating culmination of a long war. Those of Judahs’ “brightest and best” who had not been killed in the war were deported to Bablyon (we get a glimpse of this practice in the book of Daniel). Those who remained in Judah after this “Babylonian exile” had been stripped of everything — their incomes, their dignity, their loved ones, and symbol of their national faith, the Temple.
These events were particularly devastating because of the history that preceded them. The nation of Israel had been united under Kings Saul, David and Solomon. After Solomon’s death, his sons divided the nation into two kingdoms, the Northern (Israel) and the Southern (Judah). An immediate reason for this division was that the tribes in the North rejected the heavy taxes levied by Solomon’s son, Rehoboam. Scripture also tells us that the division of the kingdom was God’s judgment for Solomon’s failure to rid the nation of idol worship. (See 1 Kings 12:30-43.) The Northern Kingdom, comprising ten of the original tribes of Israel, regularly engaged in alliances with other nations in contradiction to God’s commands. It was conquered by Assyria in 722 B.C.E.
The Southern Kingdom was comprised of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. King David was a Judahite. God had promised that David’s kingdom would endure forever. In 2 Samuel 7:11-16, God spoke through the prophet Samuel, and gave this promise:
“Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’
Judah’s national identity, therefore, was as the chosen remnant of God through whom the Davidic kingdom, and with it the blessing of God, would endure forever. In this light, the destruction of Jerusalem by the pagan nation of Babylon was an inconceivable calamity. It seemed that God himself had forsaken his promises to his people.
Some Helpful Resources
F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, “Interpretation” Commentary Series (John Knox Press 1989)
J. Andrew Dearman, Lamentations, NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan 2002)
The Baker Atlas of Christian History (Baker 2005)
This continues my conversation with Daniel Harrell, author of “Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith.” Daniel is a long-time Pastor at Park Street Church in Boston, MA. Park Street is an historic evangelical church.
Dave: Let’s consider a question that’s the “Big Kahuna” for many evangelicals — and I admit, a tough one for me: the evolution of human beings and the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. A friend of mine reminds me that Genesis 2:4 describes what follows as an “account” — a tol’dot or “generational history” — though of course I remind him that it’s a different history chronologically than Gen. 1! Theologically it seems that the literal-ness of Adam has been a line in the sand, particularly for folks committed to a Reformed understanding of original sin. You seem to lean towards a “recent representatives” view in your book. A few specific questions here:
Is it difficult or uncomfortable for you to come to a view that’s not strictly monogenistic? Does this mess significantly with your theology of scripture, the image of God, and original sin?
Daniel: No, not necessarily. As for the image of God, if you are willing to assert that God creates with evolution (which I am willing to do), then the image of God becomes a result of that, and thus people evolve as a reflection of God’s own creative and free character. However, in line with Pannenberg, I see the imago dei as destiny rather than starting point. So God creates people in his image; that is, he makes us with the potential to become (as with creation itself). At the same time, God’s plan includes redemption from the beginning. In Christ we are fully the image of God.
I’ve never been one who thought of original sin as genetic (and clearly neither could have the Reformers). Once Adam and Eve go for it, the human race is tainted to be sure, but remember, I see creation as something started and not yet finished, not something perfect that then went awry.
Dave: More than a few people have suggested to me that accepting a non-literal or semi-literal view of Adam is a rejection at least of evangelical Christianity, or worse, the loss of something essential to any sort of authentic Christian faith. How do you respond to such concerns?
Daniel: I do think that an historic Adam and Eve seem to be as essential as an historic Jesus, at least given Paul’s treatment. I grant that adam could be a metaphor for humanity as a whole. But if your concern is the authority of Scripture, having Adam as a person (chapter 2 account) describes what Gen 1 does poetically as a prologue. Still, if Adam turned out to be fictitious (and how would we ever know this?), I don’t think all would be lost. In the end, Christianity rises and falls on the resurrection, not on the garden of Eden.
Dave: How persuaded are you really that the “recent representative” view might be true? I have to confess, it seems to me a stretch to suggest that Adam was a Neolithic farmer or something along those lines.
Daniel: I do think it “might” be true and surely as well as anything at preserving a reading of Scripture in line with a reading of evolutionary biology. And yet it is, like all of this, provisional. If it is the case that people emerge as evolution teaches, having God inject homo sapiens into creation seems just as odd given all that would be required to mask its injection as natural rather than supernatural. But, if Adam is a precursor of Christ, I guess God can do whatever pleases him. My point is that we don’t have to get caught up in defending a literal Adam. We have options.
The shallow character of many strategies for renewal [of the Church] is revealed just to the extent that the resulting churches cannot understand how Christians might face persecutions. This is particularly a problem in America, where Christians cannot imagine how being a Christian might put them in tension with the American way of life. This is as true for Christians on the left as it is for Christians on the right. Both mistakenly assume, often in quite similar ways, that freedom is a necessary condition for discipleship.
— Stanley Hauerwas, Commentary on Matthew 13.