Theological-Interpretation

In Rom 7:1–6, Paul appears to draw on Num 5:11–31 as a metaphorical way of characterizing the Christian community’s history. 1 While her husband lives, the wife’s involvement with another man would make her liable to the charge of adultery from her current husband. From this charge, the wife would also become liable to the ritual of Num 5:11–31, and the serious consequences that it would entail if she had indeed committed adultery ( Num 5:21–22, 24, 27–28).2

Mark 12:28–30 reports Jesus’ citation of Deut 6:4–5 as Torah’s preeminent commandment and of Lev 19:18 as the commandment of next greatest standing (cf. Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10:25–28). Jesus’ expansion of Deuteronomy’s בכל־מאדך ( Deut 6:5; ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου; with all your might) into ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου ( Mark 12:30; with all your mind and with all your strength) 1 is in step with Deuteronomy’s original formulation (cf. Mark 12:33a) but perhaps stresses still further יהוה’s comprehensive claim on the affections of the command’s addressees. 2 Not surprisingly, these commands’ importance also provides further, mutually-reinforcing suggestions about readings of Israel’s scriptures, including ones that privilege the love of יהוה and even of one’s potentially disagreeable neighbor over any burnt offering or sacrifice ( Mark 12:32–34). 3

[caption id=“” align=“alignright” width=“284” caption=“von Carolsfeld, Woodcut for”Bibel der Bildern” (Image via Wikipedia)“] [/caption]

The story of Jesus’ raising Jairus’s daughter appears in all three synoptics ( Matt 9:18–19, 23–26; Mark 5:21–24, 35–43; Luke 8:41–42, 49–56), but only Mark and Luke report a closing admonition about the event’s further dissemination ( Mark 5:43; Luke 8:56). In Luke 8:56, Jesus instruction focuses on the fact that the witnesses, perhaps especially the parents, should not themselves engage in describing what happened. By contrast, in Mark 5:43, Jesus warns those around him ἵνα μηδεὶς γνοῖ τοῦτο (so that no one would know this*).

[caption id=“” align=“alignright” width=“225” caption=“Image via Wikipedia”] [/caption]

In Num 12:1, Miriam and Aaron confront Moses because of his marriage to a Cushite woman, and in so doing, they attempt to claim equal prophetic status with Moses ( Num 12:2a). Apparently, on this occasion, Moses’ meekness constrains him from responding ( Num 12:3; cf. Rom 12:19; 1 Clem. 17 [ANF 9:234]; Socrates, Hist. eccl., 7.42 [NPNF2 2:176]), but יהוה hears the conversation and summons all three siblings to the tent of meeting ( Num 12:2b, 4). יהוה then summons Aaron and Miriam for a special rebuke ( Num 12:5): however high may be their claim to apparently equal prophetic status with Moses, Moses own status still surpasses that of prophet ( Num 12:6–9). The status that Aaron and Miriam claim for themselves gets them only so far—only to dreams and visions ( Num 12:6). By contrast, Moses is not limited to dreams and visions, but פה אל־פה אדבר־בו ומראה ולא בחידת ותמנת יהוה יביט ( Num 12:8a; with him, I [יהוה] speak mouth to mouth, plainly, and not in riddles, and he looks upon the form of יהוה). More than a prophet, Moses is a faithful servant in all יהוה’s house ( Num 12:7; Heb 3:5).

[caption id=“” align=“alignright” width=“193” caption=“Simon von Cyrene (Bamberger Kreuzweg; Image via Wikipedia)”] [/caption]

Mark 15:21 describes Simon of Cyrene as having been “pressed into service” (ἀγγαρεύουσιν . . . Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον) to carry Jesus’ cross, and Matt 27:32 uses the same language (ἄνθρωπον Κυρηναῖον ὀνόματι Σίμωνα . . . ἠγγάρευσαν). Only Matthew’s narrative, however, has Jesus previously instructing his disciples, saying, ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετʼ αὐτοῦ δύο ( Matt 5:41; whoever will press you into service for one mile, go with him for two; cf. Bruce, “Synoptic Gospels,” 328; Gundry, Matthew, 94; Keener, Matthew, 199). Matthew does not identify how far Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus’ cross, but the accompanying soldiers at least press him into service not to carry his own cross, as would have been anticipated, but someone else’s ( Matt 27:27–32; France, Matthew, 221–22, 1064–65; cf. Keener, Matthew, 199–200; Lightfoot, Commentary, 2:132–33; Schürer, Jewish People, 2.2.231). At this juncture, Jesus’ own disciples are not to be “found,” and in their stead is only one Cyrenean who appears only here in the synoptic tradition ( Matt 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). Although certainly not explicitly included among the audience for Jesus’ earlier instruction in Matt 5:41, Simon here serves, where others fail to do so, as a model of the kind of discipleship that Jesus has described. In this way, Simon has a share in Jesus’ cross, albeit still only to a limited extent (Allison, “Anticipating the Passion,” CBQ 56.4 [1994]: 704–5; cf. Luke 9:23; 14:27; 23:26; Rom 6:5; Phil 3:8–11; Augustine, Cons., 3.37 [NPNF1 6:196]; Origen, Comm. Matt., 12.24 [ANF 9:464]; [Pseudo-]Tertullian, Haer., 9.1 [ANF 3:650]*; Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, 95–104, 161; Keener, Matthew, 673).

In his Dialog with Trypho, 86, Justin Martyr suggests that οἱ βασελεῖς πάντες καὶ οἱ χριστοὶ ἀπὸ τούτου μετέσχον καὶ βασιλεῖς καλεῖσθαι καὶ χριστοί (all the kings and messiahs had, by this one [= Messiah Jesus], a share in being called both kings and messiahs [i.e., anointed ones]). Yet, Matt 26:6–13 (cf. Mark 14:3–9; Lk 7:37–39; John 12:1–8) seems to ask its readers to connect Jesus to messiahship via a rather surprising route—namely, by an un named female character (France, Matthew, 361; Keener, Matthew, 618; Thiemann, “The Unnamed Woman,” ThTo 44.2 [1987]: 183–86; cf. John 12:1–8; Barrett, John, 2nd ed., 409; Gundry, Matthew, 522; Köstenberger, Theology, 232–32; Lightfoot, Commentary, 2:341; Platt, “Ministry,” ThTo 32.1 [1977]: 30–32). Irrespective of whether this unnamed woman understands the full significance of her action, including how Jesus connects it to his upcoming burial ( Matt 26:12),

[caption id=“” align=“alignright” width=“174” caption=“Gustave Dore,”The Children of Israel Crossing the Jordan” (Image via Wikipedia)“] [/caption]

Within the narrative of Exodus, identifying the referent of the term מלאך (angel, messenger) in Exod 23:20 is somewhat nettlesome (Ausloos, “The ‘Angel of YHWH,’” VT 58, no. 1 [2008]: 7–10; Enns, Exodus, 473–74), but one reasonable reading is to understand this term as a reference to Joshua (Augustine, Faust., 16.19 [NPNF1 4:226]; Justin, Dial., 75 [ANF 1:236]; Tertullian, Adv. Jud., 9 [ANF 3:163]; Tertullian, Marc., 3.16 [ANF 3:335]; see also Ausloos, “The ‘Angel of YHWH,’” 9n43; cf. Exod 33:12; Gowan, Theology in Exodus, 227–28; Stuart, Exodus, 542–43). Yet, this Joshua does not pardon sins because the name of the God of Abraham is only in him ( Exod 23:21; i.e., he acknowledges this God’s renown; cf. 1 Kgs 5:11 [Eng.: 4:31]; see also Mal 1:11; Ps 8:2 [Eng.: v. 1]; 1 Chron 14:17; 2 Chron 20:9). Rather, such forgiveness comes by him who has received this God’s name as his own ( Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:17–26; John 17:11–12; Phil 2:9–11; cf. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 272–74, 631–45) and in whom Abraham’s offspring inherit not one region only by conquest ( Exod 23:24, 31) but the whole world by meekness and rest ( Matt 5:5; Rom 4:13; Heb 4:8–10; see also Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 300–3).

[caption id=“” align=“alignright” width=“200” caption=“Depiction of the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Image via Wikipedia)”] [/caption]

The interchange in Matt 18:21–22 looks back to Jesus’ immediately preceding comments on handling a community member (ἀδελφός) who sins ( Matt 18:15–20; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 61.1 [NPNF1 10:357]; cf. Matt 18:21; 19:1). Read within this context, Peter’s question ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ; ( Matt 18:21a; How many times* shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?) addresses a very plausible ambiguity in Jesus’ preceding comments. Judging from this question, Peter presumably thinks it inappropriate for a community member endlessly to sin and repent, but as long as some repentance was involved, Jesus’ instructions could seem never to allow further action to be taken. As many times as the community member would sin and repent, this member would also be restored ( Matt 18:15b; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 61.1 [NPNF1 10:357]).

Matthew 14:22–33 narrates Jesus’ walking on water. Yet, unlike the parallel accounts in Mark 6:45–52; John 6:15–21, Matt 14:33 reports that the disciples’ conclusion, at the end of this episode, was ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ (truly, you are the son of God). Apparently thinking along the lines similar to Heb 3:5–6, Archelaus, Disputation with Manes, 44 ( ANF 6:220; affiliate disclosure), relates this text to Jesus’ superiority to Moses. Perhaps more to the point here, however, is a chaos-versus-creation motif (Boring, “Matthew,” NIB 8, 327; affiliate disclosure) in which Jesus subjects the surrounding disorder (Graves, “Followed by the Sun,” RevExp 99, no. 1 [2002]: 92; Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, rev.ed., 163 [ affiliate disclosure]; Verseput, “The Faith of the Reader,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 14–16; cf. Augustine, Serm., 25.6 [ NPNF1 6:338; affiliate disclosure]; Jerome, Epist., 30 [ NPNF2 6:45; affiliate disclosure]). He does so, first, by walking on the sea himself and then all the more by causing Peter to do the same (Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 50.2 [ NPNF1 10:311–12; affiliate disclosure]). In this framework, then, if Israel’s God is master of the seas (e.g., Job 9:8; Ps 89:9, 19–37; Hab 3:8, 15; cf. Gen 1:2 [LXX; LSJ, s.v. ἐπιφέρω, §§2–3PIFERW#lexicon)])—a kind of mastery not otherwise within the realm of human experience—Jesus’ walking on the sea is an eminently good reason for identifying Jesus as θεοῦ υἱός (son of God) and worshiping him as such (see Matt 14:33; Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 6.51 [ NPNF2 9:117; affiliate disclosure]; cf. Mark 6:51–52; John 6:21; Aristotle, Poetics, 5.6, 6.2 [ affiliate disclosure]).

In Gen 17:13, God tells Abraham that his whole household was to be circumcised והיתה בריתי בבשׂרכם לברית עולם (and my covenant will be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant). Yet, Paul strongly opposes Gentiles’ submitting to circumcision in connection with their membership in the Christian community (Galatians) and asserts that ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ {ὅτι} περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι ( Rom 2:29; the Jew is one who is such inwardly, and [that] circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter). What then becomes of the בבשׂרכם []ברית עולם ( Gen 17:13; everlasting covenant in your [= Abraham’s household’s] flesh)? It is precisely there because of the circumcision of Abraham’s messianic seed ( Gal 3:16), ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ( Col 2:11; in whom you also were circumcised with an unhandmade circumcision in the removal of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Messiah; cf. Gal 3:23–29; Bede, Genesis, 284 [ affiliate disclosure]; Chrysostom, Hom. Col. 6 [ NPNF1 13:285; affiliate disclosure]; Cyril of Alexandria, Catena on Genesis[ ACCOT 2:56; affiliate disclosure]; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Colossians [ ACCNT 9:32; affiliate disclosure]).

[caption id=“” align=“alignright” width=“150” caption=“Abraham and Melchisedek (Image via Wikipedia)”] [/caption]

As Abram returns from rescuing Lot ( Gen 14:1–16), Melchizedek brings out bread and wine ( Gen 14:18), and so, fittingly does the priest do the same whom David says has been appointed in Melchizedek’s order ( Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1–26; Augustine, Civ., 16.22 [NPNF1, 2:323]; Augustine, Doctr. chr., 4.21 [NPNF1, 2:590]; Bede, Genesis, 269; Cyprian, Epistles, 62.4 [ANF, 5:359]). Melchizedek is without genealogy ( Heb 7:3), and his bread and wine are also without origin. Yet, he brings them to Abram and, in a way, to Abram’s seed ( Gal 3:15–29; Heb 7:9–10; cf. Bede, Genesis, 269; Cyprian, Epistles, 62.4 [ANF, 5:359]). The messianic seed, however, brings bread and wine as from himself, and he brings them to those also who are in himself as Abram’s other offspring ( Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–20; Gal 3:15–29; Heb 2:10–18).

[caption id=“” align=“alignright” width=“100” caption=“Walter Brueggemann”][/caption]

According to Lipscomb University’s website,

Walter Brueggemann, will be the keynote speaker at Lipscomb University’s annual Preaching Workshop, Oct. 24-26. His keynote speech, “Preaching & Paradigmatic Creation,” is free and open to the public at 7 p.m., Monday, Oct. 24, in Shamblin Theatre.

For more details, see here.

[caption id=“attachment_8406” align=“alignright” width=“200” caption=“Image via Communio”] [/caption]

Earlier this semester in Exploring Religion, we discussed Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods, and one paragraph particularly struck me as an apt illustration of Qoheleth’s advice that עת לחשות ועת לדבר ( Eccl 3:7b; there is a time to be silent, and there is a time to speak):

When Cotta had spoken, Velleius said, ’It was indeed rash of me to attempt to argue with someone who is both an academician and an orator. I would have no fear of an academician who had no gift of words or of an orator however eloquent who was not a good academic philosopher. I am not put out by a stream of empty words, or by subtle propositions quite devoid of eloquence. But you, Cotta, are  a champion on both counts. You only lacked an audience and a jury. But more of this another time. Let us now hear Lucilius, if he will favor us with his views. ( 123; underlining added)

...

The Evangelical Theological Society’s southeastern, regional meeting begins tomorrow and will feature some interesting-looking papers, a couple of which I have been able to preview as they have come through Southeastern’s Writing Center. Fellow blogger Alan Knox will be presenting on “A Theology of Encouragement in Hebrews,” and my own paper, “But What about Israel?: A Biblical-Theological Approach to the Question of Individual and Corporate Election in Romans 9–11” has also been included in the program. To abstract this paper briefly:

Klyne Snodgrass discusses a “hermeneutics of identity.” Snodgrass repeatedly observes the New Testament’s concern with issues related to identity.

This morning, Scot McKnight has an engaging post that addresses some ambiguities present in descriptions of “theological interpretation.” To move toward decreasing these ambiguities, McKnight proposes his own description of what interpreting scripture theologically should mean—namely, “read[ing] individual passages in the Bible through the lens of one’s orthodox, community-shaped, and confessional theology” (italics original). Read the whole post, particularly the concluding paragraphs, for some other, very good reflections on the interrelationships between theology and hermeneutics.