Editorial | Adam Johnson _____________________________________________________________________________ T hank you for reading our very first edition of Inservimus. The idea for this journal came about when, during our Integrative Seminars, Dr. Thomas and our other professors encouraged us to work together, really to serve one another by teaching and learning from one another’s fields, so that we all become well rounded scholars. That is the purpose of the first year Integrative Seminars and this new Student Group and Journal is a way for us to continue striving for this goal during the rest of our Ph.D. years. The field of scholarship can be a competitive environment. But we do not want this to lead us away from the heart God wants us to have. One of the primary goals of this new Student Group and Journal is to foster an attitude of service among us. Hence, the name Inservimus. We do not want to view one another as competitors, but as fellow laborers competing against God’s enemies. Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. (Phil 1:27–28) I know from experience that it is very easy to slip into the mindset of self-promotion. I think all of us aspire to greatness, and that is not wrong in and of itself. But it is important to remember what Christ taught about being great. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but 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 20:20–28). 1 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 1–2 Jesus did not condemn James and John for aspiring to greatness, but he radically re-defined what it means to be great. And then He gave them a path for achieving that greatness—to serve others. If you are in the Ph.D. program, clearly God has given you intellectual gifts. These gifts were given to you, but they’re not for you. As with all of God’s gifts, the question is: Are you going to use His gifts to promote yourself or to serve others? Let me state one of our primary goals again. This new Student Group and Journal encourages Ph.D. students to work together, really to serve one another, by teaching and learning from one another’s specialized fields so as to become well rounded scholars. One way we plan to accomplish this is by publishing Inservimus, a yearly journal made up of papers written by Southeastern Ph.D. students. It is a journal by Southeastern Ph.D. students for Southeastern Ph.D. students. Only papers that have received an A in a Ph.D. seminar will be eligible for consideration. From that pool of papers, an Editorial Board of volunteer Ph.D. students, chose which papers to include. We hope this will provide valuable experience to Ph.D. students in publishing their work, presenting papers, and serving on an Editorial Board. Adam Lloyd Johnson Inservimus President, 2015 Inservimus Editors, 2015 Andrew Koetsier (Biblical Theology) Brian Williams (Philosophy) Chuck Bumgardner (New Testament) Dustin Conner (Missions) Gregory Lamb (New Testament) Josh Branum (Christian Leadership) Kenny Hilliard (Old Testament) Matthew James (Historical Theology) Michael Spain (Preaching) Neal Thornton (Preaching) Travis Southern (Preaching) Inservimus Officers, 2015 President – Adam Johnson Vice President – David Phillips Treasurer – Kyle Norton 2 Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann | Chet Harvey Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann — Chet Harvey — _____________________________________________________________________________ Colin Gunton showed that perichoresis is a valuable concept for theology extended beyond the doctrine of the Trinity. It can help explain other doctrines of the Christian faith when used in its proper analogous form, which offers the parameters for its explanatory power. _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction P erichoresis is a spatial metaphor that has been widely used in Christian history to explain both the hypostatic union and the Trinity. When used in reference to the Trinity, perichoresis illustrates the mutual dwelling and interpenetration of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to Paul Fiddes, “The term ‘perichoresis’ thus expresses the permeation of each person by the other, their coinherence without confusion. It takes up and develops the words of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: ‘believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me’ (John 14:11).”1 It is one of a number of spatial metaphors used in theology to describe relational realities.2 Since the revival of Trinitarian research in the 20th century, the concept of perichoresis has been put to wide use across the theological spectrum. Kevin Vanhoozer writes that the concept has moved from purely Trinitarian discussion, “into a full-blown paradigm for expounding the nature of human being, the relation between God and human being, even the relation between God and the non-human world.”3 Perichoresis is seen by certain theologians as having explanatory power for other doctrines of the Christian faith. This paper will explore the concept of perichoresis through the work of two theologians who use it paradigmatically, Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann, to determine whether it can be appropriated to these other areas of theological inquiry. Following Gunton’s usage of the concept, this paper will argue that perichoresis has limited but useful application in other areas of doctrine within evangelical theology. This paper will first compare Gunton’s analogical development of perichoresis with Jürgen Moltmann’s ontological development of the same concept. It will next look at three significant critiques of Moltmann’s position, particularly Kevin Vanhoozer’s critique of perichoretic application from the position of classical theology, which he also extends to include Gunton’s 1 Paul S. Fiddes, “Participating in the Trinity,” PRS 33 (2006): 385. James D. Gifford, Perichoretic Salvation: The Believer’s Union with Christ as a Third Type of Perichoresis (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011), 1. 2 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 157. 3 3 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 3–15 position. This paper will argue that while Vanhoozer shows important limits of usefulness, the concept still has analogical explanatory power. Finally, it will show how perichoresis is analogically useful by focusing on the doctrines of theological anthropology, ecclesiology, and soteriology, with further application implied in the discussion. Colin Gunton’s Analogical Perichoresis Before his death in 2003, Colin Gunton was one of the leading systematic theologians in Britain. Over the course of his career he became increasingly interested in the doctrine of the Trinity and how that doctrine explains God’s actions in and for the world. Gunton believed that much of the problem of modern society lies at the feet of theology that downplays or misrepresents the Trinitarian being of God. “[P]art of the responsibility for the modern fragmentation of culture, and especially its loss of a coherent sense of meaning and truth, is to be laid at the door of Christian theology’s traditional tendency to a monolithic conception of God and truth.”4 Gunton found the resources to combat this monolithic tendency in the Trinitarian emphasis of God as being-incommunion. One of the Trinitarian concepts that Gunton found especially helpful was perichoresis, which he applied to God’s being as well as the fabric of reality. Early in Gunton’s career he found Karl Barth’s use of the concept helpful for keeping the doctrine of the Trinity away from mere speculation, functioning primarily to “keep language about God down to earth.”5 According to Barth, “[Perichoresis] asserts that the divine modes of existence condition and permeate one another mutually with such perfection, that one is as invariably in the other two as the other two are in the one.”6 Eventually Gunton extended the concept beyond Trinitarian discussion to other realms of theological enquiry. He believed that even modern science validated the concept, calling the universe a perichoresis of interrelated dynamic systems.7 His most extensive discussion of perichoresis came in his most celebrated book, The One, the Three, and the Many. In this work he developed the concept of perichoresis as an open transcendental, which through analogy is able to explain the universe and its interwoven features. In order to understand Gunton’s application of perichoresis, it is important to grasp how he used all three of these terms: transcendental, open, and analogy. Gunton began his discussion of perichoresis in The One, the Three, and the Many by pointing to the failure of classical foundationalism in the Enlightenment to assure a universal and indubitable foundation of knowledge. Neither the rational nor empirical quest for universal truth delivered on its promise to produce this truth. However, the rejection of universal knowledge claims within postmodern philosophy was an overreaction, because it lost, “any notion of the Colin E. Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity / The 1992 Bampton Lectures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 129. 4 Colin E. Gunton, Becoming and Being: The Doctrine of God in Charles Hartshorne and Karl Barth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 147. 5 6 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, (London: T & T Clark, 1936), 7 Colin E. Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 2d ed. (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 151. 425. 4 Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann | Chet Harvey overall unity and coherence of being and thought.”8 Gunton pointed to the work of Don Cupitt as an example of this overreaction, where the concept of God becomes a mere expression of human experience. Against both classical foundationalism and the postmodern rejection of universal knowledge claims, Gunton believed that theology should develop a third way to understand truth, incorporating both the universality of truth as well as the limitations of humans in their quest for truth. Gunton believed that the concept of transcendentals enabled this third way. Gunton defined transcendentals as, “notions which give some way of conceiving what reality truly is, everywhere and always.”9 Lincoln Harvey further clarifies transcendentals as, “those universal features of the world, the description of which is an attempt to capture conceptually the true nature of reality.”10 These are notions contained within the fabric of reality that point to universal truth. Many theologians, most notably Thomas Aquinas, have used this concept to explore these universal features of reality. However, Gunton believed that two weaknesses were exhibited in earlier approaches to transcendentals. The first weakness was that they tended to emphasize unity (“the one”) as transcendental, but not diversity (“the many”). He saw this in the approaches of Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas. For Aquinas, the four transcendentals were one, true, good, and being. Gunton argues that this leaves out both beauty and plurality as transcendental marks of creation. The second weakness was that the search for transcendentals tended to overlook human particularity and limitation, which have been emphasized in the work of Immanuel Kant and postmodern philosophers and theologians. Gunton argued that in response to these two characteristics of humanity, as well as the noetic effects of sin, transcendentals should be understood as open transcendentals, which are notions, “in some way basic to the human thinking process, which empowers a continuing and in principle unfinished exploration of the universal marks of being.”11 They are concepts whose value is found, “not primarily in their clarity and certainty, but in their suggestiveness and potentiality for being deepened and enriched, during the continuing process of thought, from a wide range of sources in human life and culture.”12 Gunton’s major argument here is that human limitation would never enable the kind of certitude sought for in foundationalism, but a more modest attempt at understanding universal features of reality was not beyond human grasp. His quest for open transcendentals can be seen in line with critical realism as advocated by Alister McGrath, J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, and others. McGrath defines critical realism as, “a style of realism which is sensitive to the historically situated and personally involved character of theological knowledge, while resolutely declining to let go of the ideals of truth, objectivity and rationality.”13 Similarly, the search for open transcendentals reveals both the objectivity of truth and the limitations of the human knower. 8 Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many, 134. 9 Ibid., 136. 10 Lincoln Harvey, “The Double Homoousion,” in The Theology of Colin Gunton, ed. Lincoln Harvey (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 88. 11 Ibid., 142. 12 Ibid., 142–43. 13 Alister E. McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Reality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 195. 5 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 3–15 An area where Gunton valued Aquinas’ approach was in his emphasis on the analogous nature of transcendentals. Aquinas stressed the analogical character of likeness between God’s being and the world, where “the relations between finite and infinite are made conceivable, while the otherness of God and the world is also preserved.”14 The emphasis on analogy allows the transcendentals to be developed based upon God’s own being and action in the world, while also stressing the deep mystery of God’s being as distinct from the being of the world. Hence, the Trinity itself is not a transcendental, but rather characterizes the being of God. However, the Trinity produces transcendentals, which reflect His being in some fashion. “The expectation is that if the triune God is the source of all being, meaning and truth we must suppose that all being will in some way reflect the being of the one who made it and holds its being.”15 Gunton viewed perichoresis as one of these open transcendentals that enables exploration in the created order. According to Gunton, the concept of perichoresis is full of fruitful possibility for other areas of Christian inquiry: [Perichoresis] opens up all kinds of possibilities for thought. The reasons are first that it is a concept heavy with spatial and temporal conceptuality, involving movement, recurrence, and interpenetration; and second that it is an implication of the unity-in-diversity of the divine economic involvement in the world. Because the one God is economically involved in the world in those varied ways, it cannot be supposed other than that the action of Father, Son and Spirit is a mutually involved personal dynamic. It would appear to follow that in eternity Father, Son and Spirit share a dynamic mutual reciprocity, interpenetration and interanimation.16 Because the world has been created by God, it too shares this perichoretic quality. Gunton draws on Romans 1:20 to establish this point, which states that God’s nature can be perceived in His creation. Although the world is only marked by perichoresis analogically to God’s being, being constitutionally limited in time and space, the concept is still useful to understand the being of the world and the relations of beings within the world. Jürgen Moltmann’s Ontological Perichoresis Unlike Gunton, Jürgen Moltmann sees the primary value of perichoresis not in analogy, but in ontological categories: The community with God is also a mutual indwelling, and thus a perichoretic unity: ‘Those who abide in love abide in God and God abides in them’ (1 John 4:16). Mutual indwelling and perichoresis are also the life secrets of the whole new creation, because in 14 Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many, 138. 15 Ibid., 145. 16 Ibid., 163. 6 Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann | Chet Harvey the end God will be ‘all in all’ (1 Cor. 15:28) and everything will be in God. The perichoretic unity of the triune God should therefore be understood as a social, inviting, integrating, unifying, and thus world-open community. The perichoretic unity of the divine persons is so wide open that the whole world can find room and rest and eternal life within it.17 Moltmann first develops his doctrine of Trinitarian perichoresis in The Trinity and the Kingdom, where he shows the importance of both the personhood and the unity of the Trinity in his concept of perichoresis. Regarding the personhood of the Trinity, he argues against understanding the members of the Trinity as modes of being, as both Barth and Rahner tended to describe them, because it develops an incipient modalism.18 He also argues against understanding the members of the Trinity as relations, as Augustine described them, because relationality presupposes personal existence. Rather, following Boethius, Moltmann believes the three members of the Trinity should be defined as persons, “the non-interchangeable, untransferable individual existence of any particular case.”19 For the Trinity this means that each person of the Trinity possesses the divine nature non-interchangeably. “They have the divine nature in common; but their particular individual nature is determined in their relationship to one another.”20 Regarding the unity of the Trinity, he argues against the tendency within Western Christianity to understand Trinitarian unity first as divine substance, as Tertullian advocated, because this makes the persons secondary.21 Rather, following salvation history, the unity should be understood as, “constituted by the Father, concentrated round the Son, and illumined through the Holy Spirit.”22 Each of the persons of the Trinity has a role within the Trinitarian life, and only as the persons are understood can the unity of the Trinity be known. This unity is upheld in the perichoretic relationship of the Trinity. The persons do not exist first and then enter into relationship, but rather each exists in his relationship with the other members of the Trinity, “by virtue of their eternal love.”23 In his theological development of perichoresis, Moltmann extends the concept of mutual indwelling by virtue of love beyond God’s own being to God’s creation. Thomas McCall writes of Moltmann, “Perichoresis functions as the overarching and underpinning motif that holds his theology together. It is central to his understanding of the God-world relation, and it is basic to his Jürgen Moltmann, “Perichoresis: An Old Magic Word For A New Trinitarian Theology,” in Trinity, Community and Power: Mapping Trajectories in Wesleyan Theology, ed. M. Douglas Meeks (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2000), 117. 17 18 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom (repr., Fortress Press, 1993), 171. 19 Ibid., 171. 20 Ibid., 172. 21 Ibid., 177. 22 Ibid., 178. 23 Ibid., 175. 7 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 3–15 understanding of theological anthropology and the doctrine of creation.”24 Moltmann explains this extension of perichoresis from God’s own begin to the being of the world through his understanding of God’s love. For Moltmann, suffering and creativity are both essential to love’s nature. Because God is a loving being, then He creates the world and suffers with the world out of necessity.25 Also important to Moltmann’s doctrine of creation is that for God to create something outside of Himself, then He must in some sense lessen or diminish Himself. Moltmann holds to this position because he believes that since God’s essence is everything and interpenetrates everything, there can be no such thing as nothing.26 Therefore God must withdraw Himself in the act of creation. Margaret B. Adam succinctly states Moltmann’s position, “From God’s initial withdrawal, God creates a creation born of God’s lack, of a certain incompleteness of God.”27 Therefore, God’s perichoretic indwelling is extended to creation to complete His own being in the fullness of time. Moltmann compares his position with C.G. Jung’s recognition in religious pictures that Mary becomes a fourth member of the Trinity, but for Moltmann Mary is “the symbol for the redeemed humankind and the renewed creation… This means that the Trinity is an open environment for the redeemed and renewed creation.”28 According to Kevin Vanhoozer, “The unity of the three persons is inclusive rather than exclusive; others can join in. God makes space and time by kenotically contracting his immensity and eternity so that creatures can participate in the divine relational matrix.”29 Critiques of Perichoresis There have been a number of critiques of Moltmann’s ontological use of perichoresis from classical theologians. John Cooper writes that Moltmann, “makes perichoresis, the traditional doctrinal term for the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity, his ontology.”30 For Moltmann, “Perichoresis is the structural dynamic of all reality. It functions as Moltmann’s implicit ontology: to be is to be perichoretically involved. Since the God-world relation is perichoretic, Moltmann’s mature theology can be labeled perichoretic panentheism.”31 Cooper further writes that in Moltmann’s theology, “God is three but is not yet fully one, since creation is Thomas McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 158. 24 25 Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 59. 26 Ibid., 109–10. 27 Margaret B. Adam, Our Only Hope: More than We Can Ask or Imagine (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2014), 41. 28 Ibid., 118. 29 Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology, 152. 30 John Cooper, Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2006), 31 Ibid., 252. 237. 8 Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann | Chet Harvey not yet in God.”32 For Moltmann, creation is therefore necessary for the completion of God’s being. This is a position far removed from Orthodox Christianity, which stresses the freedom and otherness of God in relation to the world by separating God’s being from God’s willing.33 Thomas McCall is sympathetic toward the extension of perichoresis, but believes that Moltmann’s panentheistic treatment is an inadequate Christian explanation. He notes that the language of the Gospel of John does entail some type of desired relation between God and creature, specifically referring to the prayer of Jesus in John 17, that believers be “in” the life of God.34 The problem for McCall is that John does not entail a necessary relation between God and creature. In order to affirm perichoresis without entailing the necessity of the creation for God, McCall writes that Moltmann could, “insist that the inter-Trinitarian life shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one of perichoretic love and communion, and he could also hold fast to the beliefs that we are created for an analogue of that life, that part of what it means to be redeemed is to share in the recovery of this life as it is shared together (John 17:21)—and indeed, that the love we are made to know and enjoy as creatures is the same love shared within the life of the triune God (17:23).”35 But McCall notes that this would be a drastic revision to Moltmann’s position, especially in regard to his understanding of creativity and suffering as essential to love’s nature. One of the most substantial critiques to Moltmann’s position is offered by Kevin Vanhoozer in Remythologizing Theology. Vanhoozer believes that there are some deep problems with the position that he labels the kenotic-perichoretic relational view of God’s interaction with the world, in distinction from the classical view that he advocates. Vanhoozer lists three key differences between classical theism and what he calls the kenotic-perichoretic relational view of God. First, the divine persons are seen not in substantival but in relational terms. Second, God’s love for the world is seen as perichoretic relationality. Third, God’s suffering is seen as a necessary consequence of his kenotic relatedness.36 Vanhoozer believes that each of these positions is inadequate for Christian theology. He thinks it is a mistake to give relationality ontological priority in the definition of the person, because this removes what the relations actually exist between. Specifically regarding God’s being, relationality does not exhaust His triune personhood. To do so collapses the distinction between each person within the Trinity. “If God’s being is communion, then divine unity becomes conceptually indistinguishable from divine Threeness, and it consequently becomes difficult, if not 32 Ibid., 249. Colin Gunton gives primary credit to Athanasius, Irenaeus, and Basil of Caesarea for developing an ontological distinction between God and the world, and also between God's own being and His willing of creation. See Colin E. Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 65–72. 33 34 McCall, Which Trinity?. 171. 35 Ibid., 171. 36 Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology, 140. 9 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 3–15 impossible, to maintain the divinity of each person in himself.”37 Vanhoozer believes that this relational emphasis comes from a mistake within contemporary theology to confuse personhood (what a person is) with identity (who a person is). The way forward is to see identities as relational, rather than reducing personhood to relationality.38 Vanhoozer specifically critiques Moltmann’s position by arguing that Scripture points to a covenantal and not ontological relation between God and the world. He shows a large inadequacy with Moltmann’s position by pointing out that within Scripture, the Holy Spirit is said to indwell some but not all people. If there was an ontological relation between God and the world, then there would be a mutual participation between God and all of humanity. Instead, there is a covenantal participation between God and those who have entered into relationship with Him through Christ.39 Another critique of Moltmann’s perichoretic position is that it makes the history of Christ and salvation through Christ obsolete. Rather, Christ is upheld solely in cosmic terms through whom the world is reaching its completion: This cosmic variation on a perichoretic theme relocates the mutual fellowship of God and world from the person of the Mediator to the neighborhood of metaphysics. The mutuality between God and humanity – the sharing of life – is still ‘in Christ,’ but this is now less a function of the history of Jesus than it is of the cosmic Christ in and through whom all things hold together.40 These are both major critiques to Moltmann’s system and show why (amongst other reasons) it is untenable within evangelical theology. Evangelical theology is committed to both the ontological distinction between God and the world (contrary to panentheism, pantheism, and process theology), and also committed to the salvific efficacy of Christ’s atonement for those who believe (contrary to universalistic implications of certain perichoretic theories). However, the question remains whether Gunton’s own concept of perichoresis is also an inadequate position within evangelical theology. According to Vanhoozer, it is equally inadequate. Any attempt to make perichoresis the root metaphor for God’s involvement with the world is to confuse divine essence with divine economy. Vanhoozer sees this problem in both Moltmann and Gunton. “Moltmann is hardly the only theologian who has stretched the concept of perichoresis to describe not only the ad intra life of the Father, Son, and Spirit but the life of the Trinity ad extra as well. Colin Gunton too uses perichoresis as the root metaphor of a world hypothesis that sees all levels of reality – divine, human, and cosmic – as mutually related.”41 A further problem for Vanhoozer is that it is an illegitimate transfer of concepts that belong properly to the Trinity. The brunt of Vanhoozer’s critique of positions such as Gunton’s concerns the latter problem, because he believes that any analogy between God and creation is misguided. 37 Ibid., 143. 38 Ibid., 144. 39 Ibid., 156. 40 Ibid., 157. 41 Ibid., 153. 10 Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann | Chet Harvey Vanhoozer explains that analogical relation between God and world lose sight of the large distinction between Creator and creature: God is love because his being is a dynamic communion (persons-in-relatedness) and because God communicates himself as love in three ways (persons-in-distinctness). The former aspect marks the definitive difference between the Creator and creature. Unlike human persons, the life of Father, Son, and Spirit is one of eternal mutual indwelling. The three persons interpenetrate one another in a way that is unique to the divine being: one cannot understand divine personhood by deriving it from some generic concept of personhood. From a “classical” vantage point, then, the main problem with the new relational ontotheology is not its forgetting of the question of being but its forgetting of the Creator–creature distinction.42 According to Vanhoozer’s position, the fundamental differences between God and creation are simply too large to enable analogical comparisons. “As with all analogies and metaphors, one must acknowledge both the ‘is’ and the ‘is not.’ The problem with the perichoretic analogy is that the God–world relation is fundamentally not like the intratrinitarian communion, for God and creation are not on the same plane of being.”43 This is why Vanhoozer concludes that “the concept of perichoresis is properly at home only in discussions of the immanent Trinity.”44 If Vanhoozer is correct, then perichoresis has no place in helping guide other doctrines within Evangelical theology. However, Gunton’s own boundary markers on the use of perichoresis as analogy show that there is some conceptual similarity which can be employed with the concept, and point the way forward for where it can be helpful as a theological foundation to help enlighten other areas of Christian doctrine. The answer to Vanhoozer’s critique comes from Gunton’s own application of analogy. Throughout his career, Gunton maintained the ontological distinction between God and creation. One of Gunton’s most used resources for describing this distinction was Irenaeus’ metaphor of Christ and the Holy Spirit as the two hands of God at work in creation. 45 God coexists with creation in otherness and relation by the mediation of Christ and the Holy Spirit. This concept is important because it metaphorically pictures God both holding Himself to creation and apart from creation so as to mediate knowledge but not overwhelm creation.46 Because of his commitment to the large ontological distinction between God and creation, Gunton does not succumb to the panentheistic descriptions of other perichoretic conceptions such as Moltmann’s. But for Gunton, in order to not fall into mere apophatic declarations about God, there must be some speech that is able to both unity and distinction between God and creation, which Gunton 42 Ibid., 149. 43 Ibid., 158-159. 44 Ibid., 151. 45 For one example amongst many, see Gunton, The Triune Creator, 52–56. Paul Cumin, “The Taste of Cake,” in The Theology of Colin Gunton, ed. Lincoln Harvey (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 65. 46 11 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 3–15 saw in analogical language.47 Gunton knew that analogical language ran the risk of confusing God and reality if not carefully delineated, so he sought to create boundaries in his use of the open transcendentals. According to Lincoln Harvey, Gunton “sets out to modify the established understanding of a transcendental in a way in which the God-world duality is respected while enabling a genuine search for concepts that carry across the ontological divide.”48 Here Harvey notes Gunton’s suggestion that the Trinity itself is not a transcendental, because placing it as transcendental would “fail to maintain distinction between God and the world.”49 Rather, transcendentals are generated as a reflection (however faint) of God within His creation. The point of searching for transcendentals is not to find universal notions within creation that have the power to explain the Trinity itself, such as in vestigial trinitatis, but rather that these transcendentals, as generated by God, enable better understanding of the world as God’s creation through opening up conceptual space to think more deeply about facets of reality. Understood in this way, there is a place for analogy within creation as a mark of the Trinitarian Creator. These analogies will be limited because of the great divide between Creator and creation, but will still be useful for understanding aspects of creation. The limited but useful application of analogical perichoresis can be seen in two areas of Christian doctrine as developed by Gunton, theological anthropology and ecclesiology. Application can extend to other areas beyond Gunton’s own development, such as soteriology. In all of these areas, perichoresis enables better understanding of the issues involved and how they can be explained. Each of these areas will be introduced, with implications for further development in these areas and others. Applications of Analogical Perichoresis Theological Anthropology According to Gunton, this reflection of God’s being is abundantly clear in the perichoretic nature of human life and culture. Because human beings are created in God’s image, “the idea that human beings should in some way be perichoretic beings is not a difficult one to envisage.”50 He wrote that both individualism and collectivism in society had detrimental effects because they emphasized either the one or the many at the expense of the other. The concept of perichoresis helps correct both of these social ills because it teaches that humans do not simply enter into relationships with others, but that humans are closely bound up with each other. Gunton developed two central features of human life from the conception of perichoresis in the Trinity. First, the perichoretic concept teaches a concept of personal space that does not reduce to individualism. Individualism is the view, “which holds that there is so much space 47 Harvey, “The Double Homoousion,” 88. 48 Ibid., 88. 49 Ibid., 89. 50 Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many, 168. 12 Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann | Chet Harvey between people that they can in no sense participate in each other’s being.”51 Perichoresis, on the other hand, teaches that persons are not who they are in isolation from God and other people, but in relation with God and other people. God created people in networks of relationships with Himself, other people, and the rest of creation. These relationships do not limit particularity, but instead help develop it. “Our particularity in community is the fruit of our mutual constitutiveness: of a perichoretic being bound up with each other in the bundle of life.”52 Humans have power to give freedom to each other and confer particularity, but also the power to take it away. This can be seen particularly in close relationships such as marriage and family life, where good relationships help form the person into the particular being that they are becoming. However, Gunton was quick to remind the reader that this concept is used analogically because within the persons of the Godhead there is “total and eternal interanimation of being and energies.”53 When used of human life, the content of the concept must be modified to acknowledge limitations of time and space. Humans do not interanimate each other in the way that the persons of the Trinity do as one being. However, human life is shaped for both good and bad within the many networks of relationships that are developed through life. Ecclesiology The perichoretic analogy is also useful for understanding ecclesiology. Paul’s metaphor of the church as body in Ephesians 4 and 5 as well as in 1 Corinthians 10 and 12 shows the importance of mutual indwelling within the church. Persons are not meant to be separated from each other, but actually have great power for each other both for good and for evil within the Church. According to Paul in Ephesians 4, the body is meant to grow and develop together in unity and love. This happens as each member is doing her part within the whole. Gunton argued that the concept of perichoresis has explanatory power for this area of doctrine. In Gunton’s essay, “The Church on Earth,” he developed the perichoretic analogy between the being of God and the being of the Church by means of what he called ‘an intermediate step,’ an appeal to a more general Trinitarian theology of creation. A theology of creation that is specifically Trinitarian rejects monism and pantheism in its insistence on the ontological distinction between God and the universe. While God is an infinite and necessary being, the created universe is both finite and contingent. God’s activity in the universe is not of necessity (following Moltmann), but rather of his free, personal love.54 Out of this love, God is moving creation to its Colin Gunton, “Trinity, Ontology, and Anthropology: Towards a Renewal of the Doctrine of the Imago Dei,” in Persons, Divine and Human: King’s College Essays in Theological Anthropology, ed. Colin Gunton and Christoph Schwobel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 55. 51 52 Ibid., 170. 53 Ibid., 170. Colin Gunton, “The Church on Earth: The Roots of Community,” in On Being the Church: Essays on the Christian Community, ed. Colin E. Gunton and Daniel Hardy (Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2001), 67. 54 13 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 3–15 completed and perfected state. The Church is, as a created structure, also finite and contingent, but is called to reflect this anticipation of God’s completion of creation. Gunton described the church’s role in creation as a kind of echo, “[T]he Church is what it is by virtue of being called to be a temporal echo of the eternal community that God is.”55 The echo language is important because it enables analogical usage of God’s own being and continuing activity in creation. “It therefore becomes an echo of the life of the Trinity when it is enabled by the Spirit to order its life to where that reconciliation takes place in time, that is to say, to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.”56 Summarizing Gunton’s position, Roland Chia writes, “The concrete nature of the church means that it becomes an echo of the life of the Godhead – the church points to the creative and recreative presence of God to the world.”57 Soteriology James Gifford, Jr. notes that while Gunton never explicitly developed a soteriological application of perichoresis, his teaching strongly pointed in that direction.58 For Gunton, salvation involves a right ordering of relationships between the person and God and between the person and other people. “Redemption or salvation is that divine action which returns the creation to its proper direction, its orientation to its eschatological destiny, which is to be perfected in due course of time by God’s enabling it to be that which it is created to be.”59 This new orientation toward eschatological destiny differs from the ontological perichoresis developed by Moltmann, which by its very nature assumes a universal extent to salvation and minimizes the particular renewal that God does within the human heart in salvation. In Gunton’s theology of salvation, an implicit tie can be made between perichoresis and his doctrines of justification and sanctification. For Gunton, justification is God’s declaration which brings a person into a new set of relationships through spiritual adoption.60 In this view, along with a renewed vertical relationship with God, salvation involves a new set of horizontal relationships where the person is shaped in part by other people through spiritual friendships. Similarly, sanctification happens through perichoretic relation also. It involves new freedom for the person through these new sets of relations, analogous to God’s own freedom. While God experiences this freedom perfectly, redeemed persons can experience it in part. “The context of sanctification is a freedom to be what one is created to be, a child of God living comfortably and 55 Ibid., 76. 56 Ibid., 79. 57 Roland Chia. “Trinity and Ontology: Colin Gunton’s Ecclesiology. ” International Journal Of Systematic Theology 9 (2007): 461. 58 Gifford, Perichoretic Salvation, 114. 59 Gunton, The Triune Creator, 56. Colin Gunton, The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001), 139-144. 60 14 Perichoretic Application in the Theologies of Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann | Chet Harvey unafraid in the creator’s world, even when surrounded and threatened by death.”61 Conclusion Colin Gunton showed that perichoresis is a valuable concept for theology extended beyond the doctrine of the Trinity. It can help explain other doctrines of the Christian faith when used in its proper analogous form, which offers the parameters for its explanatory power. While this paper has given brief glimpses into perichoretic application in theological anthropology, ecclesiology, and soteriology, there are other applications for the different areas of Christian doctrine. As Gunton notes, if the Trinitarian God has created the world, then it is reasonable to assume that there are reflections of His being within His creation.62 Gunton’s concept of perichoresis also does not fall prey to the same weaknesses of Moltmann’s ontological perichoresis, which falls outside the bounds of evangelical theology in its implications for God’s own being and His relationship with the world. Because Gunton maintains perichoresis as a useful analogy, it can be continually explored and developed in a beneficial manner in evangelical theology. 61 Ibid., 150-151. 62 Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many, 168. 15 Developing Criteria for Medication Referral | Kristin Kellen Developing Criteria for Medication Referral Based on Anthropology and General Revelation — Kristin Kellen — _____________________________________________________________________________ [H]uman beings exist as embodied souls. This is evident in Scripture, specifically stemming from texts on life after death. Additionally, the Church Fathers and Reformers supported this notion, either through direct teachings on the subject or assumptions made in other texts. In understanding when medication is appropriate, the counselor must understand both the effects of sin on the body and the soul, as well as the benefits and limitations of truth revealed through general revelation. _____________________________________________________________________________ W Introduction ithin the field of biblical counseling, an ongoing debate has been the use of medication in addressing counseling issues or disorders. This is particularly present as the secular world has moved towards a medical model, because as Michael Emlet notes, “Medication is touted as an important (if not the most important) aspect of treatment within the psychiatric community. In popular street-level understanding, it is THE treatment of choice.”1 Biblical counselors, then, must understand both the theology behind a consideration of medicine to treat certain disorders but also should have means of determining when it can be recommended. This paper will seek to demonstrate that because we are embodied souls, evidenced through a biblical anthropology, church history, and general revelation, we are able to determine a clear set of criteria for the proper use and recommendation of medication in counseling. To demonstrate these criteria, we will look at Bipolar Disorder as an example and work through the criteria step by step. Biblical Anthropology—Body and Soul In reality, theology shapes practice. This means that a counselor’s belief system can heavily influence both method and content. A proper understanding of the role of the body and the soul are important for considering life’s problems. In particular, there is a need to minister to both— meeting physical needs while also seeking to meet spiritual needs. 2 With regards to biblical Michael Emlet, “Listening to Prozac...and to the Scriptures: A Primer on Psychoactive Medications,” Journal of Biblical Counseling 26.1 (2012): 11–12. 1 John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), chapter 9. 2 16 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 16–26 anthropology, a “holistic dualism” view is the most appropriate in light of Scripture and early Christian writers, and has significant implications for counseling. These include a proper understanding of the roles of the body and soul, as well as the interaction of the two and the influence of one upon the other. The counselor cannot treat a person as if the body or the soul does not matter, or that they are unaffected by the other, which is seen through examples such as emotions, personal interests, motivations, and culture.3 There must be a correct understanding that the human being exists as a unified whole, and practice that is in line with this understanding.4 Historically-Held Ideas The Old and New Testaments The Bible presents a very holistic emphasis when it comes to the body and the soul, which is oftentimes taken for granted in reading the Old Testament.5 It is argued that for the Israelites, there was a unity of the body and soul, and were “so essentially tied together that were they somehow separated, a human being would not only cease in every way to function, she would actually cease to exist.”6 For them, the body, soul, and spirit all refer to the whole person, not necessarily parts, and for the Hebrew mind, one cannot exist without the other, contrary to Greek thought. This view is contested though, as many claim that the modern mind has its own prejudices and tendencies. 7 For John Cooper, he believes that the Hebrew idea of the body and soul was one of unity, but also an understanding that the soul can continue after physical death- his view is holistic and dualistic.8 As in the Old Testament, it is relatively clear that there is also an argument for both the body and the soul in the New Testament. The strongest arguments come from the New Testament view of life after physical death, specifically the separation of the soul from the body. 9 The view that has historically been held is the idea that there is an interim time between physical death and the reuniting of the body and the soul.10 It is essential to determine what happens when we die in order to make a determination between monism and dualism in the NT.11 Considering the context and audience of the New Testament, as well as the New Testament teaching itself, we would easily affirm the belief of life after death.12 This is evident in texts like 1 Peter 3:19-20, where Jesus preaches in the realm of the dead, and Hebrews 12:23, where the writer speaks of the heavenly 3 Ibid. 4 Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting, chapter 9. 5 Ibid, chapter 2. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., chapter 5. 17 Developing Criteria for Medication Referral | Kristin Kellen Jerusalem.13 In 1 Peter, it is clear that the audience is spirits, whereas in Hebrews, it is not specified.14 Also, in Revelation 6:9-11, the martyrs are told to be patient for the final resurrection, indicating a time in which they are conscious of their condition, but not yet resurrected. 15 Paul clearly affirms his belief in the resurrection of the dead when he stood before the Sanhedrin on trial, as well as throughout his letters to the churches.16 In addition, 1 Thessalonians 4 affirms that the dead in Christ will rise and be with Him, and 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of the resurrection as a future historical event.17 Finally, Matthew 10:28 is a primary verse, in which Jesus teaches, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body (soma) but cannot kill the soul (psyche).” As Cooper writes, “the dualistic implication of this verse is hard to miss: when people kill the body, the soul is still left.”18 Cooper affirms that the New Testament is consistent with the Old Testament in its portrayal of a holistic dualism.19 Church Fathers The view of the body and the soul varied among early Christians, as well as the Church Fathers. However, most affirm continued personal existence after biological death, very much in line with the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.20 Much of the beliefs surrounding the body and soul were based on the Christian doctrine of the afterlife.21 The view held among Christians then and now was the hope of eternal life, as humans are made in the image of God and not destined to death.22 Some assumed that the soul was immediately “transported to their final destinations, either hell or the heavenly kingdom of God.”23 According to Cooper, “Most believed that there is some kind of interim location and period of waiting between death and the final resurrection, the return of Jesus, and the final kingdom of God.”24 Almost all Christians affirmed resurrection, but some argued that the body was not a fleshly body, but more of a spiritual substance. Origen was one who held to this view.25 Jerome, in contrast, claimed that “the resurrection body would be literally identical with the earthly body, including the very same hair and teeth.26 Augustine, though, allowed for “modifications and perfections of the earthly body while still insisting that what will 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid, chapter 7. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid, chapter 5. 19 Ibid, chapter 7. 20 Ibid, chapter 1. 21 Ibid. Benedict M. Ashley, Theologies of the Body: Humanist and Christian (St. Louis, Mo.: Natl Catholic Bioethics Center, 1985), 587. 22 23 Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting, chapter 1. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 18 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 16–26 be raised is the same body as the on which died.”27 There was consistency on basic features of resurrection. For example, almost all writers affirmed the “intrinsic goodness of the body as created by God.”28 In addition, it was correlated with the future return of Christ.29 Finally, early Christians assumed that “human nature is such that personal existence is not necessarily tied to the organism of earthly life.”30 To summarize, most of the earlier Church Fathers supported the idea of both a body and a soul, either through their direct teachings or through assumptions clear in their texts. Reformers Cooper states in his book that, “The tradition of Augustinian Platonism was maintained by the Protestant Reformation.”31 John Calvin was the primary player in this area, and he believed that the soul was not dependent upon the body, only lived there as if in a “house.” In addition, the soul ruled the body, determining his actions “with respect to the duties of his earthly life, but at the same time to arouse him to honor God.”32 At death, Calvin believed that the believer immediately enjoys fellowship with Christ until their resurrection at his second coming. So here, he defends the intermediate state of the soul.33 Calvin’s views have been dominant since his time, and have “shaped the beliefs of millions of faithful Christians.”34 Calvin, like Augustine, viewed humanity as “psychosomatic unities, not human souls problematically bound to problematic bodies… [that] stand in relation to God.”35 Effects of Sin on Both the Body and the Soul Since we have established that the body and soul exist as a union, this understanding must be taken a step further to include the effects of sin on both. In Genesis 1, God created the world. In doing so, He saw everything that He created as “good,” and saw His creation of humanity as “very good,” as it was the completion of His purpose.36 In the book of Genesis, the creation of humanity is situated within the creation story as the high point of all of creation. For the writer, the focus is on man, who is created in the image of God.37 God’s purpose for creating man was the same as it was 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. Beth Felker Jones, Marks of His Wounds: Gender Politics and Bodily Resurrection (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2007), 73. 35 David P. Nelson, “The Work of God: Creation and Providence,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2007), 245. 36 John S. Hammett, “Human Nature,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2007), 342, 351. 37 19 Developing Criteria for Medication Referral | Kristin Kellen for creation: His purpose was for His glory. He also created humanity with the “inborn gift of reason,” as well as the ability to determine right from wrong.38 In Genesis 3, the serpent comes to tempt Adam and Eve, and they commit the first sin. After doing so, they realized quickly that their relationship with God had changed, as they realized their nakedness and sought to cover their sin.39 As a result as well of their sin, they were driven out of the Garden and separated from God. 40 In addition, their sin and sinful nature would be passed on to all generations. 41 Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden, separated from their constant communion with God. As Louis Berkhof writes, “The nature of man, both physical and moral, is totally corrupted by Adam’s sin. . . . It is such a quality of the nature of man, that in his natural state, he can and will do evil only.”42 There are six primary results or effects of sin on humanity. First, sin is completely pervasive, in that it effects every area of our lives including both body and soul, humanity and creation.43 Second, human nature is corrupted, specifically our ability to think rightly about God and His creation.44 Third, our relationship with God is changed, in that we are now separated from Him.45 Fourth, relationships with others are damaged because of our sinfulness.46 Fifth, guilt is introduced.47 Finally, sixth, our affections change to be contrary to those of God, so that our goals are no longer naturally aligned with those of God.48 Specific to this discussion, the fact that sin is pervasive, affecting both the body and the soul, is very important. Humanity and God’s creation are markedly different from how both were created in the beginning. Both, humanity in particular, are marked by sin and brokenness. I would submit that the sin that affects our minds is just as pervasive as the sin that affects our bodies, although it is oftentimes much harder to pinpoint. As Plantinga writes, we “pull the wool over some part of our own psyche.”49 We assert falsehoods and we “prettify ugly realities.”50 He continues to write, “we deceive ourselves, and then we convince ourselves that we are not deceiving ourselves,” all the while living in lies.51 Sin’s effects go further than just the human nature and the mind; sin affects the body as well. In Romans 5:12, Paul writes, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death trough sin, in this way death spread to all men, 38 Stephen Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2000), 3. 39 Genesis 3:7–13 40 Genesis 3:23–24 41 Romans 5:12 42 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1938), 244. 43 Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin, 3. 44 Cornelius Plantinga Jr.. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Leicester: Eerdmans, 1995), 30. Norman, R. Stanton. “Human Sinfulness.” Pages 409-478 in A Theology for the Church Edited by Daniel L. Akin (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2007), 454. 45 46 Ibid, 471. 47 Milliard Erickson. Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1983), 635–36. 48 John Owen. Overcoming Sin and Temptation. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2006), 263. 49 Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, 105. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid.,107. 20 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 16–26 because all sinned.”52 In reflecting on this verse, Augustine adds that sin is passed on to all men by natural descent, and not “merely by imitation.”53 The immanence of physical death was introduced at the Fall with Adam, and is passed down in both nature and action.54 Romans 8 demonstrates as well that death is “the immediate consequence of sin… [and] physical death [is] a further effect of sin.”55 With the discussion of physical death comes the means of death, illness. Scott Rae writes, “In Genesis 1-3, death is introduced as one of the consequences of sin, and with that, some of the primary means by which death occurs, namely disease. As a result of the entrance of sin, death and illness have become a normal part of human experience… Death and disease are a normal part of life.”56 General Revelation with Regards to Medication Science/Scientific study Another area that is important to the medication debate is general revelation. General revelation, God’s revealing of Himself outside of Scripture, is “mediated through nature, conscience, and the providential ordering of history [and] traditionally has been understood as a universal witness to God’s existence and character.”57 It is essentially God’s revelation of Himself in all areas but the Bible. Based on the above, although specific directives and characteristics of God can only be known through His Word, a great deal of information can be understood about Him through His creation. Demarest writes that man has a “reminiscent” and “intuitional” knowledge of God, specifically of His existence but also the ability to function as God intended mankind to function.58 He states, “Man at large has no need to be introduced to God, for he intuitively acknowledges the existence of a supreme spiritual Being on whom he is dependent.”59 In addition, man is aware of God’s moral law. Romans 1:32 speaks to the idea that even those that live apart from God are aware that immoral deeds deserve consequences.60 Finally, and most applicable to this discussion, is that man can acquire general knowledge of God and His creation. Man can observe and understand the natural created order, typically done through scientific study.61 From this observation and understanding, man has been given the 52 All Scriptures cited are from the NIV unless otherwise noted. 53 Augustine, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptist of Infants, 1.9 (NPNF1 54 Erickson, Christian Theology, 629. 55 Thomas Barrosse, “Death and Sin in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” CBQ 15 (1953): 447. 5:18). Scott B. Rae “On the Connection Between Sickness and Sin: A Commentary” Christian Bioethics 12 (2006): 152. 56 57 Ibid, 14. 58 Bruce A. Demarest, General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), 228. 59 Ibid, 229. 60 Demarest, General Revelation, 231. 61 Ibid, 233. 21 Developing Criteria for Medication Referral | Kristin Kellen capacity to make conclusions and draw inferences about the world (and mankind) works. 62 This knowledge is not limited to believers, but according to Psalms 19:4, goes out “to the ends of the world.” Based on this, unbelievers too can understand the created order and draw logical conclusions. Berkouwer adds in his text on general revelation that “Man can never remove himself so far from divine revelation that the light of revelation no longer shines upon his life.”63 Russell Moore notes, though, that caution must be used in this discipline, in that “we must remember that humanity’s perception of general revelation is clouded by human depravity.”64 Therefore, there are real limitations to the knowledge of man, in that we simply cannot understand all of the “mysteries of God,” as Job writes. In connection with the discussion of sin above, Erickson adds that “sin produces relatively little obscuring effect upon the understanding of matters of physics, but a great deal with respect to the matters of psychology and sociology. Yet it is at those places where the potential for distortion is greatest that the most complete understanding is possible.”65 Sufficiency of Scripture- What It Does and Does not Mean As part of the medication debate, it is helpful to understand the intended parameters of the term “sufficiency of Scripture,” as this is the source of much debate. Timothy writes, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”66 This text provides the basis for much of the discussion on sufficiency of scripture, but it is helpful to note here that while the text states that Scripture is inerrant (“God-breathed”), “profitable,” and widely applicable (“equipped for every good work”), it does not state that it is sufficient for understanding all of God’s creation. As one writer notes, “Nowhere in the two verses is the notion of exclusivity communicated.”67 Instead, “his point is simply that without the Scripture, one cannot be completely proficient to carry out every good work of ministry.”68 For example, Scripture does not provide an explanation of how to perform brain surgery, how the constellations are ordered, or even something as simple as two plus two. These things God has revealed as a part of general revelation. With regards to psychology, I believe this extends to observation of God’s truths in creation. I must note here, however, that there is some discernment to be used, as Truth as revealed in Scripture is different from that revealed through creation. Scripture as revealed is inerrant, and therefore sin only effects our interpretation and understanding of it, however creation was greatly affected by the fall, so the source of truth in this area is no longer inerrant. Ultimately, Scripture 62 Ibid. 63 G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans ,1955), 150. 64 Russell D. Moore, “General Revelation” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2007), 110. 65 Erickson, Christian Theology, 199. 66 2 Timothy 3:16–17 ESV Ebenezer A. De Oliviera and Jennifer L Braun. “’Jesus Didn’t Need a Shrink’: A Critique of AntiPsychological Biblical Sufficiency,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 28 (2009): 17. 67 68 Ibid. 22 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 16–26 must be the foundation for counseling and should primarily inform and correct what we view from science, including recommendations for medication, to which we now proceed. Biblical Wisdom for Medication A Set of Criteria in Application and Recommendation of Medication When it comes to the medication debate, there is first and foremost a distinction that must be made. As was stated previously, sin is completely pervasive, affecting every aspect of our lives, both body and soul. However, Ed Welch puts it rightly when he states, “The biblical position is this: the ravages of brain injury, disease, or dysfunction cannot rob us of spiritual vitality. At the core of our being we are moral creatures, image-bearers of the Most High. Certainly, this center can be defaced and suppressed, but the culprit is sin, not sickness.”69 However, we must be careful in distinguishing between active sin and the effects of sin, the active sin being the sinful disposition of man’s choices and the effects of sin being the body’s physical brokenness. It is here where wisdom is essential for determining how the counselor is to address issues that arise, in particular those that appear to have a biological component. The first question that the counselor should ask is, “Is this issue specifically addressed in Scripture, and if so, to what end?” For instance, the New Testament speaks at length about anxiety. Jesus says in Matthew 6:25 not to be anxious about anything, and Paul writes in Philippians 4:6-7 not to be anxious, but to present our requests to God. Issues of anxiety, then, in most cases are to be primarily addressed through counseling rather than seeking medication, as Scripture speaks prescriptively to those battling anxiety.70 However, Scripture may not speak specifically to all aspects of Schizophrenia, such as hallucinations and delusions, cognitive impairment, and disorganized thought. Certainly, it may speak to many aspects of how Schizophrenia’s symptoms present themselves, but does not directly address the disease. As Ed Welch writes, “It is a challenge to think biblically when you cannot locate a specific problem in Scripture, when some of the phenomena simply do not appear.”71 In these cases, we would move towards the next question. The next question that should be raised would be, “Is there valid scientific evidence to support bodily influence?” As was discussed above in the section on general revelation, science can accurately reflect truths of God’s creation. Therefore, it is not out of the realm of a biblical counselor to be aware of current scientific studies in a particular area that affects a counselee. To use the previous example, what do current studies say about medications for treating Schizophrenia? Have they proved to be helpful? If so, the counselor could continue in their evaluation towards a medical referral. A third question that may prove helpful, though not conclusive, is “Has it worked in the past for the counselee?” In other words, has the counselee used medications in the past and found them helpful? Most often, the counselee will not have experience taking medication for their Edward T. Welch, Counselor's Guide to the Brain and Its Disorders: Knowing the Difference between Disease and Sin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1991), 291. 69 I will note here that I am not excluding any sort of medication use for extreme cases of anxiety, but this will be addressed further in the discussion on suffering. 70 71 Ed Welch, “Basics about Bipolar, Part 1,” Journal of Biblical Counseling 25.3 (2007): 44. 23 Developing Criteria for Medication Referral | Kristin Kellen presenting issue, but this does not exclude continuing with the evaluation. It would also be helpful at this stage to determine the counselee’s own views of medication: are they in agreement with this evaluation, and if so, will they be compliant? Non-compliance can oftentimes cause additional issues, so if the counselor believes medication should be considered, it should be worked through fully with the counselee before beginning the regimen. A fourth question is, “Have the heart issues been addressed and worked toward or are they currently being worked towards?” Most current secular research on psychological disorders suggests that the best form of treatment is both medication and therapy.72 Even more so, the biblical counselor should be addressing soul issues consistently through counseling and should continue doing so while the counselee is on any sort of medication regimen. The intended goal of using medication is to combat biological and physical sources of disorders, but the counselee will likely continue to battle sinful thoughts and actions in conjunction with their disorder or issue. While this paper seeks to demonstrate that the body cannot be ignored, the soul certainly should not either. Oftentimes, a major reason for considering medication is the alleviation of suffering. Therefore, many times a counselor may consider, “Will medication alleviate suffering?” For instance, with Schizophrenia, oftentimes these counselees have a great deal of stress because of their lack of control over their symptoms. In reality, many of them are suffering. While the use of medication does not exclude counseling on the biblical view of suffering and how to “suffer well,” suffering was introduced as part of the Fall, so it was not originally intended for humanity. Much of Scripture’s teaching on suffering is on perseverance, but it certainly does not exclude alleviation of suffering alongside of perseverance.73 In connection with this, many times medication will calm biological influences, such as overwhelming emotions, that will allow the counselee to be able to focus on heart issues much more easily. In these cases, it may be wise to consider medication to aid the counselee in getting to the root issues without other “distractions” that seem to get in their way. Finally, overarching any discussion of referral for medication is “How is the Spirit leading? What is most wise?” At its foundation, the medication question is a wisdom question. The above questions can help the counselor determine when medication may be appropriate, but ultimately the counselor should approach referral prayerfully and with discernment. Most often, there is not just one way to approach a particular issue or disorder, and a multitude of approaches may be helpful to a counselee. The counselor should, with humility, evaluate a potential referral and make the most wise decision in that particular case. Case Study- Bipolar Disorder Bipolar Disorder (BPD) is most often characterized by a mixture of manic and depressive episodes, with varying lengths.74 These episodes are more than just an elevated or depressed mood, but significantly change the person’s actions or thought patterns, and oftentimes may bring thoughts Pervasive through David H. Barlow, ed., Clinical Handbook of Psychological Disorders: a Step-by-step Treatment Manual, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: The Guilford Press, 2008). 72 73 discussion. Texts such as 1 Peter 5:10, Isaiah 43:2, Psalm 43:19, and 1 Corinthians 10:13 are helpful for this Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Dsm-iv-tr., 4th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), 382. 74 24 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 16–26 of suicide, guilt, and deserved punishment75 or thoughts of invincibility, inflamed worth, or power.76 BPD is also a long-term disorder, usually with an early onset and lasting years.77 Through this case study on BPD, I will seek to demonstrate the use of the above questions to determine if a referral for medication may be appropriate. It is to these questions that we now turn. Let’s use Joe as an example. Joe is in his mid-30s, an active member in his local church, and has been experiencing both manic and depressive episodes since his mid-20s. Currently, he is dealing with a depressive episode that has been present for a few months already, and has come for counseling to specifically address his BPD. He has tried medications in the past, though he is not currently on them, and they have done relatively well to stabilize his moods. However, he does not see himself as dependent on them nor does he want to be. He has a general understanding of Scripture, and a genuine desire to do what is pleasing to the Lord in his situation. In consideration of referral for medication in his case, let’s go through the questions listed above. How does Scripture address Bipolar Disorder? Is there valid scientific evidence to support a biological influence? Has medication worked in the past for this counselee? Are heart issues being addressed? Scripture does not seem to speak directly to BPD as a whole, but does speak to depression and mania in many ways. As Ed Welch writes, “In order to locate mania in the Bible, you must first reduce it to concrete and descriptive terms. What does it look like? What does it do? How does it think? What does it feel like? As we answer such questions, an experience not initially cued to Scripture can now be understood through a biblical lens.”78 Similarly, depression can be understood the same way. As such, these related themes will be addressed under heart issues below. According to the DSM IV-TR, “twin and adoption studies provide strong evidence of a genetic influence” for BPD.79 With this, there is a good amount of evidence that suggest pharmacology helps to regulate the disorder.80 Based on Joe’s history, medication has proved useful for regulating his moods during times of mania or depression, and he is open to the idea of using them again. The following heart matters should be considered 75 Ibid., 413. 76 Ibid., 415. 77 Ibid., 360. 78 Welch, “Basics about Bipolar,” 44. 79 DSM IV- TR, 386. 80 Barlow, Clinical Handbook of Psychological Disorders, 424. 25 Developing Criteria for Medication Referral | Kristin Kellen Could suffering be alleviated through medication? What is the most wise in this situation? and counseled81:  Self-control  Sanctification  Proper place of hope and dependence  Anger (more in times of mania)  Guilt (more in times of depression)  Despair (more in times of depression)  Relationships- with God and others Provided that Joe and his counselor are working through these continually, the counselor can move on with this evaluation. For Joe, suffering can certainly be alleviated, at least partially, in taking medications to stabilize his mood. Provided he is aware of the role of suffering in a believer’s life, and understands that his hope is not in a medication, the counselor can proceed. It appears from the above that medication may be a wise choice for Joe, under the supervision of both a qualified psychiatrist and his counselor. With the three of them working together, Joe may be helped significantly by taking mood-stabilizing medications for his BPD. While admittedly not every case will be as simple and straightforward as Joe’s, hopefully it is evident to the counselor that there is a means of determining with some certainty when a referral for medication evaluation can be done. As was mentioned previously, ultimately this is a wisdom question, but the counselor does not have to be fearful of exploring this option. Conclusion Throughout this paper, I have sought to demonstrate that human beings exist as embodied souls. This is evident in Scripture, specifically stemming from texts on life after death. Additionally, the Church Fathers and Reformers supported this notion, either through direct teachings on the subject or assumptions made in other texts. In understanding when medication is appropriate, the counselor must understand both the effects of sin on the body and the soul, as well as the benefits and limitations of truth revealed through general revelation. All of these taken together lead to the conclusion that medication is a viable option for treating many disorders that counselors may encounter, although practitioners should ultimately exercise wisdom and discernment in considering referrals. I have provided a set of criteria that can be useful in determining when referrals are warranted, and used Bipolar Disorder as an example of working through those criteria. My hope is that both counselors and counselees will be helped by understanding the helpfulness of treating valid physical contributions to many counseling issues 81 This list is by no means exhaustive. 26 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards Jesus as the New Moses/Israel in the Synoptic Heavenly Voice Pronouncements — Steve Edwards — _____________________________________________________________________________ [I]mplicit Mosaic and Exodus motifs found in the immediate context of the baptism and transfiguration and explicit OT allusions in the heavenly voice point to a third New Moses/Israel motifs announced by the heavenly voice alongside the Davidic and Servant motifs. _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction T here are only three instances of God the Father speaking audibly in the gospels—at the beginning, middle and end of Jesus’ ministry. The first two heavenly pronouncements are repeated in all of the synoptic accounts at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration. The third is found only in John 12:28 and requires separate treatment beyond this paper. The historical nature of these occurrences is affirmed by later NT remembrances such as 2 Peter 1:17 and 1 John 5:9. Certainly all Scripture is God-breathed and there is no reason to elevate the words of Jesus or God the Father over and above another passage. But given their historical nature and the united Synoptic focus this paper considers how the Father utilizes the OT in these pronouncements. The heavenly voice in the synoptic gospels comes on two occasions—Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration. With slight variations between authors and contexts God the Father declares that “this is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:16) Most scholars rightly agree that they contain at least two primary OT allusions to the Davidic royal son of Psalm 2:7 and the Servant of Isaiah 42:1.1 Examination of these texts rightly focuses on the OT texts of these allusions. But the astute reader will observe an apparent discrepancy. The baptism and transfiguration contexts are rich with OT Exodus imagery. But on the surface the two texts alluded to by the heavenly voice do not. There is an apparent gap between the Exodus imagery which dominate the immediate context and the OT themes of King and Servant that are announced by the heavenly voice. So the question arises how to bridge the apparent gap between the Exodus motifs in the immediate context and the OT allusions of the heavenly voice. This paper will consider how the Exodus themes in the context of the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration fit with the OT allusions of the heavenly voice. Specifically, this paper argues that implicit Mosaic and Exodus motifs found in the immediate context and explicit OT allusions in the heavenly voice add a third New Moses/Israel motif alongside the Davidic and Servant motifs. This paper will first survey the NT contexts of the heavenly voice at the baptism and transfiguration making note of the Exodus and Mosaic motifs implicitly present. Then it will examine the heavenly voice’s declaration and possible OT allusions noting those which comport with the New Moses/Israel motif. It concludes that a strong case can be made for Jeffrey A. Gibbs, “Israel Standing with Israel: The Baptism of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 3:13– 17),” CBQ 64 (2002): 511. 1 27 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 Jesus as a New Moses figure and more cautiously for a New Israel in the heavenly voice’s pronouncement. Before proceeding it is important to highlight the limits of Scriptural allusions. In the passages discussed in this paper there are no explicit OT citations or fulfillment citations. The synoptic authors are recording the quotation of a historical event and incorporating it within their Gospel accounts sometimes with distinctive theological emphases. In itself, the heavenly voice speaks with its own heavenly authority and the gospel writers record it as an “unimpeachable source.”2 So the search for a precise OT textual source can be pressed too far and conclusions should have a tentative nature. The reader is intended to recognize and weigh the synoptic author’s use of allusive OT words. But as France concludes, the main point is that God is declaring “in richly allusive words that this man who has just been baptized by John is his own Son in whom he delights.”3 Historical Reality and Background This paper considers the gospel accounts of the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration to be real historical events. The same is true for the events surrounding them. Certainly, the gospel writers are writing history with a theological purpose and thus emphasize elements and textual wording which fits their Spirit inspired accounts. But there is no compelling reason to discount their reliability as historical accounts. Later NT authors refer back to this event. For example, John writes that God himself has borne testimony concerning the Sonship of Jesus (1 John 5:9) which could refer to several forms of testimony including the heavenly voice.4 Considering Johannine authorship a reference to the heavenly voice of John 12:28 is certainly plausible. Other passages reflect the language of Jesus as God’s beloved (agapetos) including Ephesian 1:6 and Colossians 1:13 But most clearly, 2 Peter 1:17 reflects specifically the transfiguration event reproducing the heavenly voice pronouncement closely. It is noteworthy as will become apparent below that the reference to the transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:17 is immediately preceded by references to Peter’s impending death or departure (Greek exodus) in 1:15 which echo the language of Luke’s transfiguration account and conversation between Jesus, Moses and Elijah. It seems likely that the author of 2 Peter (who this paper takes to be Peter himself) is recalling events to which he was an eyewitness.5 The heavenly voice is not unique to the New Testament. Köstenberger notes several OT antecedents. There is a divine rebuke of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:31–32. But more importantly there is the heavenly voice from the tabernacle in Samuel’s call to prophetic ministry (1 Sam 3:4, 6, 8) and God’s voice to Elijah on Horeb in 1 Kings 19:13. 6 These events could have some contextual parallel with Jesus’ baptism (i.e. divine call to ministry) and the association with 2 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 384. 3 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 124. 4 George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1993), 312. D. A. Carson et al., eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England ; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 1391. 5 Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 474. 6 28 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards Horeb/Sinai at the transfiguration as will be seen below. But here it is simply worth recognizing the OT precedent for historical background. Furthermore, there is precedent within Judaism of the divine voice.7 Historically, rabbinic scholars suggested that the heavenly voice (called bat qol) was a supernatural communication but considered only an “echo” of God’s voice rather than a direct communication of God the Father. In spite of objections, this paper agrees with France that the account here describes the voice of God the Father himself.8 A possible historical objection is the lack of parallel accounts in John. As mentioned earlier, this paper deals primarily with the synoptic accounts of the heavenly voice. And it is evident that there is general agreement with the accounting and context of the heavenly voice in the baptism and transfiguration contexts. So the question arises as to why the heavenly declaration is not repeated in John and the transfiguration account is not included. It is plausible that John, writing later than the synoptics assumed his readers’ familiarity with the synoptics as Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria described.9 But the theological focal points may offer a further explanation. A key focal point of John’s gospel is the glory of God revealed in Jesus as described in the prologue (John 1:14). But in contrast, the transfiguration accounts in the synoptics emphasize Jesus’ glory. As Ladd reasoned, “John differs from the Synoptics in making the entire ministry of Jesus a manifestation of glory.”10 Finally, critical scholars have raised numerous historical objections. But the conclusion of France who cites the extensive work of Davies and Allison is sufficient here. He writes that after surveying various competing explanations “ ranging from the historicist to the frankly antisupernaturalist, and including many attempts to derive it from literary influences; their own conclusion is cautiously in favor of a real incident involving unnatural radiance such as has been recorded of saints and mystics.”11 So this paper proceeds confessionally and confidently of the historical nature of these accounts. New Moses/Israel Motifs in the NT Accounts The following survey will show that the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration contain extensive implicit contextual references to Moses and the Exodus. Their emphasis varies between authors but the sum total is impressive. The preponderance of this evidence will suggest that the New Moses/Israel motifs should be included when evaluating the OT allusions in the heavenly voice. Mosaic and Exodus Motifs in the Baptism 7 Ibid. 8 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 122. 9 J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 28. 10 Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 312. 11 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 644. 29 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 Following canonical order, this section will survey the Mosaic and Exodus references found in the context of Jesus’ baptism. New Moses/Israel themes are perhaps most pronounced in Matthew’s gospel and will be considered first and then supplemented by the accounts of Mark and Luke. Looking at Matthew as a whole, scholars such as Longenecker have noted the numerous parallels between the life of Jesus and the nation of Israel. He summarizes the evidence by saying: [I]n Matthew’s portrayal of the life and ministry of Jesus, commentators have found particularly suggestive parallels between Jesus and the nation: (1) a child of promise (1:18ff.), (2) delivered from Herod’s slaughter (2:1ff.), (3) coming out of Egypt (2:15, 19ff.), (4) passing through the waters (3:13ff.), (5) entering the wilderness for testing (4:18ff.), (6) calling out the “twelve sons of Israel” (4:18ff.), (7) giving the Law from the mount (chs. 5–7), (8) performing ten miracles (chs. 8– 9), (9) sending out the Twelve to “conquer” the land (10:1ff.), (10) feeding the multitudes with “manna” from heaven (14:15ff.; 15:32ff.), and (11) being transfigured before his disciples (17:1ff.).12 It is significant that most of these examples parallel the early period of Israel’s national life with the majority focused on the Exodus period. It is also noteworthy that these parallels tend to lie in the early parts of Matthew’s gospel.13 Further as will be explored below, two of these events occur at Jesus baptism and transfiguration in which the heavenly voice appears. He correctly notes that not all of these are equally significant but the combination of Exodus and Mosaic themes is difficult to ignore. Similarly, Gibbs argues persuasively that there an Israel typology in Matthew in which Jesus is both Israel and Moses. Regarding the infancy narratives he suggests that “the narrative emphasizes other Christological themes, most notably that the infant Jesus is the antitype or recapitulation of Israel as a whole (Matt 2:15) and, implicitly, that Jesus is an antitype of Moses (Matt 2:20).14 The argument of this paper reflects these conclusions that there is a conscious parallel between the history of Israel and Jesus’ early life and ministry in Matthew’s gospel. Narrowing further, Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism is sandwiched between two passages that include heavy exodus imagery. In Matthew 3:1–12, John the Baptist is baptizing and preaching in the wilderness to prepare the way for the Lord. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3 which comes at the beginning of the second major section of Isaiah and the book of comfort. Blomberg notes that Isaiah was employing Exodus imagery in this passage to describe the return of the exiles from Babylon.15 Similarly, Oswalt notes that this passage in Isaiah has hints of the “wilderness wanderings”16 It is also noteworthy that Oswalt concludes that the best understanding of 40:3 involves the Sinai tradition which pictured Yahweh coming from his abode in Sinai to rescue his people.17 This study of the NT contexts below will show that the twin themes of the Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 125–126. 12 13 Ibid., 125. 14 Gibbs, “Israel Standing with Israel,” 513. 15 Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 51. 16 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 51. 17 Ibid., 52. 30 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards Exodus and Sinai figure prominently in the two encounters with the heavenly voice. So the overall context of John the Baptist’s preaching and his OT citation contain exodus motifs. The temptation passage (Matthew 4:1—11) immediately follows Jesus’ baptism and God’s declaration of Jesus as his beloved in the heavenly voice. Here there is a continued emphasis of Exodus and Mosaic motifs.18 The forty days of testing likely alludes to the forty years of wilderness wandering in the dessert. That Jesus was “led” by the Spirit into the wilderness likely alludes to the leading of the Spirit in the wilderness (Deut 8:2). Blomberg suggests that the temptation to turn stones to bread may echo Moses’ failure and rebellion in striking the stone to provide water (Num. 20:1—13).19 This is possible but since the reference is to water and the book of Numbers rather than Deuteronomy this is less likely. Indeed, France rightly notes that Deuteronomy 6–8 is the key to understanding this passage.20 Instead, it is more likely that the imagery here refers to the temptation to hunger which Israel experienced. This fits the Deuteronomy quotation of living by every word which comes from the mouth of God to which Jesus refers in Matthew 4:4. As France rightly summarizes its OT context, Deuteronomy 6—8 refer to “Moses’ address to the Israelites before their entry into Canaan in which he reminds them of their forty years of wilderness experiences. . . He [God] has deliberately put them through a time of privation as an educative process. They have been learning, or should have been learning, what it means to live in trusting obedience to God.”21 Overall, the focus of the temptation passage is that Jesus succeeds in the wilderness where Israel had failed. France concludes that the temptation present Jesus as the true Israel and true son of God who will not fail as Israel had failed Thus, “the story of the testing in the wilderness is thus an elaborate typological presentation of Jesus as himself the true Israel, the “son of God” through whom God’s redemptive purpose for his people is now at last to reach its fulfillment.”22 Regardless of the precise categorization, it is evident that both the direct OT citations of Jesus (from Deut 6— 8) and the overall context contain heavy Mosaic and Exodus motifs. Between these two accounts laden with Exodus imagery, is Jesus’ baptism which is full of Exodus imagery itself (Matt 3:13—17). In the view of many scholars, Jesus’ baptism is a reenactment of the Red Sea crossing.23 This has led scholars to conclude that there is an adoption motif pictured at Jesus’ baptism. Davies writes that “Israel was adopted and became God’s ‘son’ at the exodus from Egypt, at the crossing of the Red Sea, and some scholars have found a new exodus motif in the story of Jesus’ baptism: when Jesus comes out of the waters, new Israel is born.”24 The notion that Jesus is in some sense a New Israel seems hard to dismiss in this setting and adds implicit contextual support to explicit New Israel OT allusions in the heavenly voice. Longenecker is right to conclude that while these parallels may not dominate Matthew’s entire presentation, they cannot be ignored. Rather what is clear is that Matthew employs a “Jewish 18 Blomberg, “Matthew,” 14. 19 Ibid. 20 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 128. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. Gibbs, “Israel Standing with Israel,” 517; Blomberg, “Matthew,” 14; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, 3 vols. (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 328. 23 24 Davies and Allison Jr., Matthew 1-7, 1:328. 31 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 concepts of corporate solidarity and typological correspondences in history”25 in which Jesus embodies Israel. He rightly concludes then that “this background is important for understanding Matthew’s treatment of specific Old Testament statements and events.”26 Therefore, if this pattern is reflected in the other gospels and the transfiguration accounts it strongly suggests that notions of corporate solidarity and typology (i.e. New Moses/Israel) should be weighed in the interpretation of the heavenly voice’s OT allusions. Mark’s account of the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism is brief—only three verses—but also employs some of the same Exodus motifs. Watts’ concludes that the heavenly voice and baptismal context “announced Yahweh’s new-exodus eschatological intervention.”27 This follows from some of the similar parallels found in Matthew with John the Baptist’s announcement and Exodus motifs at the temptation. He adds other possible Exodus echoes such as the “rending” of the heavens in Mark 1:10. The word could be used of apocalyptic imagery (Ezek 1:1). But he points out that word is used in Exodus 14:21 for the dividing of the Red Sea and also in the rending of the heavens in Isaiah 64:1.28 Recognizing the surrounding exodus imagery in Mark and the author’s frequent use of Isaiah, Watts is probably correct that the allusion is to a “delayed new exodus”29 bringing together these images. So Mark’s brief baptism account fits with the Exodus motif. The Lukan account of Jesus’ baptism is distinctly different from Matthew and Mark in that it emphasizes the Spirit and the Davidic motifs rather than the Exodus theme. Pao notes that “Luke focuses on the opening of the heaven that leads to the descent of the Spirit and the deliverance of the heavenly voice. The actual water baptism of Jesus is relegated to the background.”30 Repeated echoes of Isaiah 11 (Luke 1:78; 2:40; 3:9, 16) further suggest a reference to Davidic messiahship behind Jesus’ anointing by the Spirit.31 Similarly, the genealogy of Jesus is inserted between the baptism and the temptation which breaks the flow of the narrative and the Exodus imagery. Green notes that this may indicate Luke’s desire to show Jesus’ solidarity with humanity (Son of Adam in Matt 3:38) and his divine sonship (Matt 3:22).32 This would fit a Lukan focus on Jesus’ Davidic messiahship and with the heavenly voice’s declaration that Jesus is the royal messiah in fulfillment of Psalm 2:7 (“You are my Son”). But the outlines of the New Moses/Israel motifs are not erased. It still shares the same Isaianic new Exodus reference (Luke 3:4 –6), the baptism, forty days in the wilderness and Deuteronomy quotations by Jesus.33 But in the Lukan baptismal account the Exodus themes seem to be muted. Still, commentators have seen a dimension of corporate solidarity here in Jesus’ baptism and temptation. Green writes “the similarities are sufficient in scope and quantity to show 25 Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 125–126. 26 Ibid. Rikk E. Watts, “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 127. 27 28 Ibid. 120. 29 Ibid., 120. 30 David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 280. 31 Ibid. 32 Green, The Gospel of Luke, 192. 33 Ibid. 32 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards that the narrator has drawn attention deliberately to Jesus in his representative role as Israel, God’s son.”34 So while muted the Exodus theme is still present. The evidence detailed above and the conclusions of other scholars strongly suggest there are New Moses/Israel motifs in which Jesus simultaneously represents and identifies with Israel (corporate solidarity) in his baptism and as their Mosaic deliverer. Yet, even if these conclusions are not accepted absolutely, it is still clear that there are abundant Mosaic and Exodus themes running throughout the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ baptism which should be accounted for in the context of the heavenly voice. Mosaic and Exodus motifs in the Transfiguration The New Moses/Israel motifs present or implied in the baptismal context of the heavenly voice are made explicit and amplified in the second pronouncement of the heavenly voice at the transfiguration. In this familiar account Jesus takes three of his closest disciples up a mountain where his countenance is transfigured and the heavenly voice speaks once again saying “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” (Matt 17:5) Note that the voice in Mark and Luke are modified slightly—abbreviated in Mark leaving out “with whom I am well pleased” (Mark 9:7) and with Luke substituting “my Chosen One” for “with whom I am well pleased” (Luke 9:35). But there is still general agreement among the authors. Matthew continues his New Moses/Israel themes at the transfiguration in what Blomberg calls “unambiguous Mosaic typology.”35 He lists at least six points of OT connections in the passage. These are 1) six days of preparation, 2) Moses taking a group of companions, 3) the visible glory of Moses shining face, 4) Peter’s suggestion to build booths, 5) the presence of the cloud at the inauguration of the tabernacle and the pillar of cloud which led the Israelites 6) the reaction of fear by the disciples.36 He and others point to a likely background from Exodus 24 or 34. Consider the passage from Exodus 24 for comparison: Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. The glory of the LORD dwelt on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. Now the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel. Moses entered the cloud and went up on the mountain. And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights (Exod 24:15–18). This brief passage contains several of these contextual connections such as the six days and a heavenly voice from the cloud. In addition, it contains the more obvious parallels of a mountain location and the physical presence of Moses himself. There is also an explicit possible OT allusion to Deuteronomy 18:5 in the heavenly voice’s command to “listen to him” which will be considered 34 Ibid., 193. 35 Blomberg, “Matthew,” 55. 36 Ibid. 33 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 below. But overall, it is clear that Mosaic and Exodus motifs present at the baptismal pronouncement of the heavenly voice are continued and made more explicit at the transfiguration. The same pattern is found in Mark’s account. Watts’ analysis lists nine OT Exodus parallels. Many are shared in the Matthean version. He suggests rightly that the mountain setting is more significant because Mount Sinai is the only mountain in which God spoke to either Moses or Elijah.37 Further he notes the connection between the unbelief of the people encountered at the base of the mountain and its OT parallel with Israel’s response to Moses (such as Exod 20:4). Not all of these contextual allusions are agreed upon. For example, Cole believes that the six days reference at transfiguration may hold no theological significance.38 However, he notes the correspondence with Exodus 24:16 and Moses’ period of waiting for God’s revelation at Sinai. Luke’s account says 8 days (Luke 9:28) so it could be approximation from memory as if to say “about a week.”39 But the fact that only here and in the passion narrative does Mark make a similar note of the time suggests it is an intentional reference with Exodus overtones. Watts admits to weighting the OT context perhaps more heavily than other scholars in his analysis.40 But, this paper agrees with his assessment of the data that there is a new exodus pattern in Mark’s gospel—certainly in the baptism and transfiguration accounts. And thus his conclusion is warranted that “if, as I have argued, Mark is describing a new exodus, then this is its new Sinai.”41 The parallels do not have to be exact. The point is that they alert the reader to a frame of reference with which to consider the passage at hand—in this case the transfiguration.42 If Luke muted the Mosaic and Exodus references in his baptism account, emphasizing instead the Davidic motifs, that ambiguity is removed here. Exodus and Mosaic motifs dominate the Lukan transfiguration context. Analysis of Luke’s account show similar Exodus motifs as described above for Matthew and Mark.43 But, Luke even adds additional details which bring out this motif, most notably in the conversation topic. In 9:31, Luke adds the detail that Jesus was speaking with Moses and Elijah about his “departure” (Greek exodus) which he was to fulfill in Jerusalem. Scholars suggest two options for this reference. One is the death of an individual as it is used in Judaism (Wis 3:2) and also 2 Peter 1:15. The other is an Exodus motif from the LXX. Green is right to recognize the exodus motif because of its prevalence in the Lukan narrative.44 But it is also possible that both are in view. In 2 Peter 1:15, Peter refers to his impending death and his desire to remind his readers of his teaching before that happens. But the immediate context in the verses following Peter reminds his readers of the transfiguration and the heavenly voice which he witnessed (2 Peter 1:16 –19). So it is plausible that Peter is recalling this event and language as he reflects on his own impending death. There seems to be no need to choose one over 37 Watts, “Mark,” 186. R. Alan Cole, The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Mich., Eerdmans, 1989), 209. 38 39 Ibid., 210. 40 Watts, “Mark,” 112. 41 Ibid., 186. 42 Ibid. Watts view is sufficiently nuanced that these OT parallels, as with the feeding of the 5000 and Moses’ provision of manna that the parallels do not have to be exact to be present. 43 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 312. 44 Green, The Gospel of Luke, 382. 34 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards against the other in this case. The Exodus motif is dominant but so is the foreshadowing of Jesus’ death. So the passage brings together the deliverance motif of the second exodus and the means of that exodus (death) which was soon to take place in Jerusalem. Green seems to tentatively allow this possibility.45 As a result, Lukan scholars have concluded that the Mosaic and Exodus themes dominate the transfiguration account. Pao concludes that these allusions “are sufficient to show the relevance of the Moses/Exodus framework for this narrative. The presence of Moses himself in 9:33 secures this connection, and this is consistent with the Lukan portrayal of Jesus as the Mosaic prophetic figure (Acts 3:19–24; cf. 7:37).”46 Green goes so far as to call these OT references “a virtual choir of intertextual voices whose presence is so forceful that they threaten to drown out the narrator’s own voice.”47 While scholars acknowledge the dangers of taking these allusions too far their preponderance is too great to discount here. Green rightly resists those who would disallow the Mosaic elements for fear that they would drown out other interpretations. The potential for abuse is always present but it should not dismiss the evidence out of hand.48 The presence of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration gives further evidence for the Mosaic and Exodus motifs. Scholars debate the significance of the presence of Moses and Elijah. In the traditional view, they represented the law and the prophets. Other scholars consider them symbolic of messianic and eschatological hopes. France takes the latter view suggesting that the former was unlikely because Elijah was not a writing prophet.49 What is significant here is their association together within Judaism and their OT contexts which connect them uniquely to Mount Sinai. Already within Judaism there were eschatological and messianic expectations with Moses and Elijah as unique OT figures. Some considered that neither had physically died (as in the Assumption of Moses),50 and—along with Enoch—were considered the “deathless ones” because of the supernatural ending of their lives. 51 There was a rabbinic expectation that they would appear together at the end of the world.52 But their OT associations are also important. They uniquely met and spoke with God personally at Mount Sinai (named Horeb in 1 Kings 19).53 And most notably, they are associated together in only one place in the OT (Mal 4:4–5). In this eschatologically significant passage, Malachi concludes saying: Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction (Mal 4:4–6). 45 Ibid. 46 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 312. 47 Green, The Gospel of Luke, 377. 48 Ibid., 378. 49 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 649. 50 Blomberg, “Matthew,” 56. 51 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 648. 52 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 312. 53 Watts, “Mark,” 187. 35 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 This passage is already significant in the gospels because of its expectation and association with John the Baptist and Elijah (e.g. Mark 1:6). It is full of eschatological promise and warning for the coming day of the Lord. Watts further argues from their association in this passage that they do together represent the law and the prophets because they are calling people to repent and follow the law of God given at Sinai. In other words they “are to be obeyed in preparation for the longawaited new exodus, the great and terrible day of the Lord”54 Whether their representations are mutually exclusive there is a significant possibility that their presence here at Sinai together with the extensive Mosaic and Exodus parallels draw together the OT hopes of a new Exodus. But instead of returning to an old torah, Jesus himself is the fulfillment of lawgiver and exceeds everyone and everything that went before. But minimally, they provide further evidence of an OT Exodus and Mosaic motif with Jesus as a New Moses appearing on a new Sinai at the transfiguration. Like the baptismal account, Exodus and Mosaic allusions abound in the immediate and extended context of the transfiguration. Together these contexts cannot be dismissed in interpreting the explicit OT allusions found in the heavenly voice itself. To be certain, the individual authors have historiographic freedom to emphasize different elements of these motifs as it suits their overall plan and theological emphasis. For example, Matthew seems to emphasize a New Israel motif especially early on surrounding the baptism narrative while Luke emphasizes the Moses and Exodus motifs more in the transfiguration. These individual emphases must be taken book by book. Nevertheless, the synoptic authors with one voice highlight a Mosaic and Exodus motifs in the context of the heavenly voice which should not be dismissed. Thus, the New Moses/Israel motifs must be considered significant implicit contextual elements of the heavenly voice’s declaration at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration. The remainder of the paper below will consider further explicit New Moses/Israel motifs in the OT allusions of the heavenly voice. New Moses/Israel Motifs in the OT Allusions of the Heavenly Voice After establishing the extensive Exodus and Mosaic motifs in the context of the synoptic baptism and transfiguration, this paper turns to consider explicit OT allusions in the heavenly voice noting especially those which contain Mosaic and Exodus motifs. Specifically is there allusive evidence for Jesus as a New Mosaic figure or a typological sense as a New Israel herself? Scholars generally suggests that the primary shared OT allusions in the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration are a combination of Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1. Watts suggests they are nearly “almost certain”55 though Gibbs’ notable objection to the use of Psalm 2:7 in Matthew will be evaluated below. Together, these two OT allusions bridge the Davidic Messiah of Psalm 2 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 42 and other servant songs. So the victorious king imaged by Psalm 2 which judges the nations with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9–12) is tempered by the Isaianic vision of a suffering servant.56 In a short phrase, God the Father brings together two streams of OT hopes in the Davidic Messiah and Isaiah’s Servant of Yahweh. But, why in a context 54 Ibid., 187. 55 Ibid., 122. 56 Ibid., 186. 36 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards rich with Exodus and Mosaic imagery would the only explicit OT allusions by God the Father refer solely to the these two? Commenting on Mark, Watts is likely correct to see hints of a New Israel theme behind the account. He writes that “following the Isaianic trajectory, the baptism’s declaration introduced Jesus as taking up Israel’s calling (Isa. 42:1), and here in response to official Israel’s hostile sightlessness he is also Isa. 53’s Suffering Servant.”57 He rightly recognizes that there is an implicit sense in which Jesus is identifying with Israel in his baptism and thus taking on the role of the Servant/King. That is, that “God in heaven declares that Jesus is his Davidic messianic agent, his obedient and beloved Son, whose first public action is to announce the inbreaking new-exodus reign of God (1:14–15).”58 But can this New Exodus motif be found more explicitly in the OT allusions of God the Father? A New Moses in the Deuteronomy 18:15 Allusion The clearest evidence of the New Exodus motif in the heavenly voice declaration is the allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15. Moses says that “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen.” (Deut 18:15) In the OT, this may have referred to the line of prophets considered corporately who followed Moses and continued his work. But eventually it became focused on an individual with Messianic expectations (see John 1:21, 25, 45).59 It is noteworthy that Mount Horeb is mentioned in the next verse (Deut 18:16) as the place of revelation when the people pleaded for a prophet to speak for God instead of hearing God’s voice directly. That is, they plead for an intercessor and God commends them and promises to raise up a prophet for them to whom they must obey (Deut 18:18). This is significant considering the implicit contextual imagery noted above which links the New Moses motif of Sinai with the transfiguration. But these implicit Mosaic motifs are made explicit by the OT allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15 by the heavenly voice. The synoptic authors unanimously add “listen to him” to the allusions to Psalm 2 and Isaiah 42. The Lukan account presents the clearest case for an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15. First of all, Luke’s word order follows the LXX exactly (autou akousesthe). As Pao correctly notes “The Lukan word order makes it clear that it should be taken as an allusion to Deut. 18:15.”60 Luke’s emphasis is also notable because his account of the baptismal pronouncement has the least Exodus and Mosaic motifs. Furthermore, Luke employs this passage prominently in Acts. Two key speeches by Peter and Stephen explicitly show Jesus as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15 (Acts 3:22 –23, Acts 7:37). Notably, Acts 3:22 –23 contains a longer quotation of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 and 19 and connects the prophet who was to come with Samuel and the prophetic lineage culminating in Jesus who was “raised” from the dead as the fulfillment of the prophetic promise. Thus, Luke in the transfiguration account makes the most explicit linkage with Jesus as the New Moses, the prophet who was to come. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 128. J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 212. 59 60 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 312. 37 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 Strictly speaking, Matthew and Mark may only echo Deuteronomy 18:15. This is argued primarily because the word order is reversed from the LXX.61 But this difference seems relatively minor and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the synoptic authors here unanimously echo or allude to the Deuteronomy 18:15 that Jesus was indeed the prophet like Moses who was to come. So commentators like France are right that “this suggests that the figure of Jesus as a new Moses is a factor in Matthew’s account, though it is important to note that whereas at Sinai Moses was the recipient of revelation, here Jesus is its subject.”62 This does not thereby imply that Jesus’ identity is reduced to the prophet like Moses. He is much more than the prophet. Rather, this is one more stream of OT fulfillment that God the Father proclaims to be fulfilled in His beloved Son as the New Mosaic deliverer. Combined with the Davidic and Servant references from Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, it seems sufficient to conclude that there are at least three motifs fulfilled in Christ as identified by the heavenly voice—one Davidic, one Isaianic and one Mosaic. As Pao rightly concludes, “with these allusions appearing in one context, a Mosaic figure emerges who is also the Suffering Servant and the Davidic royal figure appearing at the end of times.”63 A New Israel in the “Beloved” Allusion? A final question remains as to whether there is an explicit New Israel allusion identified by the heavenly voice to further support the contextual motifs of Jesus as standing in the place of Israel as part of a New Exodus. The answer to this question will require an examination of the use of agapetos (beloved) by God the Father in these two events and the possible OT texts to which they alludes. This is a thorny question because agapetos is not found in the LXX of either Psalm 2:7 or Isaiah 42:1. As a result, there are numerous options and the matter may ultimately be decided book by book. But below is a brief overview of the options and a consideration of proposals which may confirm or deny a New Israel motif. Generally, there are four primary OT references posited for the allusion of agapetos. Pao helpfully summarizes the options with respect to Luke’s accounts which can be extended to the others. The options are Isaiah 42:1, Psalm 2:7, Genesis 22:2 and Exodus 4:22.64 But before analyzing these options, it is important to recognize that the synoptic authors use agapetos sparingly (Matthew 3x, Mark 3x and Luke 2x). Each author uses agapetos first at Jesus’ baptism. Matthew and Mark similarly render it in the transfiguration account while Luke changes it to eklektos bringing his wording closer to Isaiah 42:1. Matthew uses it once more in an explicit quotation of Isaiah 42:1 (Matt 12:18). Finally, both Mark and Luke employ it in the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13) which has a possible parallel with Isaiah 5. This evidence suggests that an Isaiah context should be the primary consideration for its use. Similarly, the connection with the parable of the wicked tenants and its possible parallel in the parable of the vineyard in Isaiah 5 should receive greater attention than was found among commentators. Nevertheless, further analysis is warranted taking into account the New Moses/Israel context of the heavenly voice and the explicit New Moses allusion shown above. 61 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 645. 62 Ibid., 644. 63 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 312. 64 Ibid., 281. 38 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards The first option is a free translation of Isaiah 42:1b.65 The use of Isaiah 42:1 among the synoptics noted above such as the use of agapetos in Matthew’s extended quotation (Matt 12:18) support this view.66 Further, Davies and Allison have argued that the Targum of Isaiah 42:1 could better be translated as beloved.67 But this proposal is not without its problems. Watts notes that in the LXX agapetos is never used to translate bahir (chosen) and that the syntax suggests it should be linked instead with son.68 Therefore, it is likely that Isaiah 42:1 is the primary but not the exclusive OT reference behind agapetos. A second options is that agapetos modifies son from Psalm 2:7 rather than a separate title.69 Watts suggests that in Mark the allusion of agapetos may be more closely connected with Psalm 2 depending on the Targumic translations and thus refers to Jesus as God’s beloved Messianic son.70 But if so the synoptic authors are not unanimous. France says the echo between Psalm 2:7 is much stronger in Mark and Luke while in Matthew it is only the one word “my son” which is common.71 So France and others suggest a third option in which Matthew has in mind Genesis 22:2 referring to Isaac as the only beloved son.72 There is a surprising amount of evidence and commentators in support of this position.73 In Genesis 22:2, God refers to Isaac as “your son, your only (agapetos) son, whom you love.” This is one of only two places in the LXX in which agapetos modifies son (the second in Jeremiah is considered below). Contextually, it is curious that the term “rending” in Mark 1:10 used in Exodus for the dividing of the Red Sea is also used in Gen 22:3 for “rending” the wood for the sacrifice. Though not convincing of itself it is notable by its proximity to Gen 22:2 in this the first use of agapetos in the LXX. Pao also notes verbal parallels and possible Isaac typology reflected in Jubilees 17:16 which bring together the language of “beloved” and “pleased” in the same passage.74 Against this conclusion, Watts cautions that there is no explicit Isaac typology in Mark.75 Here once again the synoptics are not unanimous and the case must be made book by book. It seems that the evidence for a New Israel seems strongest in Matthew. Yet, even Pao concludes that in Luke Genesis 22:2 provides the closest verbal parallels but also that Isaiah 42:1 may sufficiently account for the use of agapetos, especially when taken with the subsequent use of “chosen one” in the transfiguration passage. So a conclusion for Genesis 22:2 must be tentative. But if there is an echo of Genesis 22:2 present, it expands the typological imagery beyond the royal Son and Isaianic servant and points to a possible sonship motif from the Pentateuch. 65 Ibid. 66 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 123. 67 Davies and Allison Jr., Matthew 1 –7, 1:337. 68 Watts, “Mark,” 123. 69 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 281. 70 Watts, “Mark,” 122–123. 71 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 123. 72 Ibid. 73 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 281; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 187. 74 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 281. 75 Watts, “Mark,” 122. 39 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 This leads to the fourth proposal of Exodus 4:22 and possible corporate identification with Jesus and Israel.76 In Exodus 4:22, God calls Israel his firstborn son and commands Pharaoh to let him go. The shared contextual Exodus imagery between this and the baptism passages make this a tantalizing option to see Jesus as God’s firstborn son with a New Israel motif. But explicit evidence is lacking and commentators note that such a connection is hard to establish here. 77 The primary weakness textually is the use of prototokos (firstborn) instead of agapetos. So if there is an explicit connection between agapetos and Jesus as the corporate New Israel it must likely be found elsewhere. Jeffrey Gibbs has proposed another option specific to Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism which suggests that Israel as God’s son is the background for the agapteos of the heavenly voice. The title of his paper, “Israel Standing with Israel: The Baptism of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel” suggests that there is a New Israel typology found in the heavenly voice at the baptism of Jesus. He proposes that it is found in Jeremiah 31:20 (38:20 LXX).78 In light of the contextual evidence described above this is an intriguing proposal which will be evaluated in conclusion. Gibbs first challenges any allusion to Psalm 2:7 in Matthew’s baptismal account and by extension challenges a royal Davidic allusion. He cites three reasons. First, he suggests that the Davidic themes present elsewhere in Matthew, notably in the birth narratives, are not central in this passage. Secondly, he argues that Matthew emphasizes the sonship theme in the birth narratives and Jesus’ identity as Immanuel in contrast to Mark who has no birth narratives. Thirdly, he notes that the wording of Matthew’s quotation is different from Mark and Luke and thus farthest removed from the language of Psalm 2:7. Most notably there is a shift from the second to the third person voice in Matthew’s account.79 This position is plausible but not sufficient to dismiss any allusion to Psalm 2:7. It is true that lack of Davidic themes in the immediate context suggest that another theme, namely a Mosaic one, is more prominent. But that does not rule out a Davidic theme more than it rules out the suffering servant theme. Further, the lack of birth narratives and thus sonship themes in Mark’s abbreviated account is an argument from silence. But the sonship themes of Matthew and the change in wording do signal a possible allusion distinct from or in addition to Psalm 2:7. Recognizing Matthew’s sonship theme, Gibbs states that “insufficient attention has been given to the theme of “Israel as Yahweh’s son.”80 He proposes that Jeremiah 31:20 (38:20 LXX) and its surrounding context is the proper OT allusion in Matthew in conjunction with Isaiah 42:1. Here, God speaks longingly for Israel using sonship language saying “Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he my darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him” (Jer 31:20). Gibbs is surely right that there are strong reasons to take this allusion seriously. First, he describes the close textual correspondence with agapetos (here translated ‘dear’) referring to Israel as God’s son.81 Notably this is one of only two instances in the LXX where agapetos modifies “son” the other considered above in Genesis 22:2. This correspondence is significant especially in 76 Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 281. 77 Green, The Gospel of Luke, 187. 78 Gibbs, “Israel Standing with Israel,” 511. 79 Ibid., 513–515. 80 Ibid., 515. 81 Ibid. 40 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards the absence of agapetos in either Psalm 2:7 or Isaiah 42:1. Second, Gibbs shows that Matthew refers to this same chapter of Jeremiah earlier in reference to Rachel weeping for her children (Matt 2:18) and possibly later in allusions to the new covenant in Matthew 23:8.82 Third, he shows that a new Exodus motif is present both in Jeremiah 38 and in Matthew 3. The abundant Exodus motifs at the baptism and transfiguration strengthen this point of connection (see Jer 31:8). Gibbs rightly points out themes of a second exodus, the Passover, passing through the waters, the new covenant Sinai themes and the nation of Israel as God’s firstborn contained in this single chapter.83 The reference to Israel (Ephraim) as God’s firstborn (prototokos) in Jeremiah 31:9 is also significant. For it provides a possible thematic link between the firstborn son motif from Exodus 4:22 above with the beloved (agapetos) son (31:20) in a single passage. Finally, he argues similarly to this paper that the surrounding contexts of Matthew 2 and 4 present Jesus typologically as Israel the son of God. This fits the argument above and thus this paper agrees with Gibbs’ assertion that in Matthew the “events of Jesus’ life are the “recapitulation” of Israel’s history” 84 as Jesus embodies Israel. In light of this evidence, Gibbs is probably right but overstates his case saying that “it is absolutely certain that he was well aware of the LXX Jeremiah 38 and therefore all the more likely that at Matt 3:17 he is alluding to v. 20 of that chapter.”85 He has made a compelling case that echoes of LXX Jeremiah 38 are likely present in Matthew’s account. The question is whether this was the only allusion to which he was referring. While Gibbs makes a compelling case for an OT allusion to Jeremiah 38:20 LXX it is not necessary to make it an exclusive claim. The unanimous way in which the synoptic authors seem to refer to Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1 suggest that Matthew may be bringing a secondary allusion to Jeremiah 38:20 (and possibly Genesis 22:2) to the foreground. As Blomberg correctly writes, “The two options, however, scarcely prove mutually exclusive.”86 The important point for this paper is that Gibbs’ proposal of a LXX Jeremiah 38:20 allusion in the heavenly voice’s baptismal pronouncement gives support for an explicit textual allusion to Jesus as the New Israel. It does so by recognizing a possible OT allusion for the beloved (agapetos) son which is found corporately in Israel but finally fulfilled in God’s perfect beloved son. This does not stand in opposition to the existing textual allusions to the royal Davidic son of Psalm 2:7 or the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 42:1. But it serves to suggest the presence of a New Israel typology and helps bridge the gap between the heavy Exodus contextual motifs in the baptism and transfiguration passages with the heavenly pronouncement. It may not be possible to make a final determination of the use of agapetos across the synoptics in the heavenly voice. Nor is it ultimately necessary. For, as Watts argues with respect to Mark, “a clear-cut decision may not be possible or even desirable because Israel, the Davidic king, and presumably the servant are all Yahweh’s ‘beloved sons.’”87 But, the discussion above strongly suggests that at least in Matthew there is strong contextual and tentative textual support 82 Ibid., 516. Ibid., 517. One challenge which Gibbs notes is the differences between the LXX and MT of Jeremiah. But he states that the new Exodus motifs are still present there although Passover is not explicitly present in the MT. 83 84 Ibid., 518. 85 Ibid., 517. 86 Blomberg, “Matthew,” 14. 87 Watts, “Mark,” 123. 41 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 27–43 for a New Israel motif that bridges that gulf between the Exodus imagery of the baptismal and transfiguration settings and the heavenly voice’s pronouncement. Conclusion This paper has argued that implicit Mosaic and Exodus motifs found in the immediate context of the baptism and transfiguration and explicit OT allusions in the heavenly voice point to a third New Moses/Israel motifs announced by the heavenly voice alongside the Davidic and Servant motifs. First, the abundance of Exodus imagery in the immediate and thematic synoptic contexts is too substantial to dismiss when evaluating the OT allusions of the heavenly voice. Secondly, inclusion of the Mosaic references to Deuteronomy 18:15 in all the synoptic accounts makes a New Moses motif highly likely. Finally though tentatively, there is textual evidence for a New Israel motif at least brought forward in Matthew through allusions to Genesis 22:2 and Jeremiah 38:20 LXX as God’s beloved. Together, God the Father is connecting the dots in OT themes showing that Jesus is not only the expected royal Son of David and Suffering Servant but also the prophet like Moses who was to come and will ultimately take the place of Israel as God’s firstborn Son succeeding where Israel had failed. Little wonder that He is the beloved of the Father. Implications and Suggestions for Further Research One implication of this conclusion is that it helps answer the question of why Jesus needed to be baptized by John even though he had never sinned. A full answer to this question is worth further study but the analysis above suggests that one primary reason was for Jesus to identify corporately with Israel as God’s firstborn son and like Moses to lead them out of bondage. It was not because of any sin on his part but his full identification with sinful humanity (emphasized in Luke) and sinful Israel (in Matthew). Gibbs explores this implication more fully and further study of this theme is warranted.88 Further recognition of the dual corporate and individual nature of Jesus’ OT fulfillment could shed light on related debates. For instance, another thread to be explored is the perennial issue of the identity of the Servant in Isaiah and its oscillating reference to an individual deliverer and to the nation of Israel. It is possible that this is a false choice.89 Instead, Jesus is both the New Israel and the New Moses as identified by the heavenly voice and thus identifies with the failure of the corporate servant Israel who is blind and weak (e.g. Isa 41:8–10) and the victorious royal suffering servant who leads them to redemption (Isa 53) although paradoxically through weakness and apparent defeat. Finally, as noted briefly above it would be worth exploring in depth the New Exodus motifs found in Isaiah as further background for the OT allusions of the heavenly voice. There may be OT connections to be found there which link back to the Exodus accounts which would have been more evident to a first century Jewish disciple. Furthermore, the reference to the vineyard in Isaiah Gibbs, “Israel Standing with Israel,” 522. So to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15) he suggests is “eschatological and soteriological rather than primarily moral.” 88 89 Watts, “Mark,” 126. 42 Jesus as the New Moses/Israel | Steve Edwards 5 and God’s beloved (agapetos) and the similar imagery in the parable of the tenants (also using agapetos) seems to be more than coincidence and worthy of additional investigation. 43 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry — Patrick Edwards — _____________________________________________________________________________ The doctrine of the imago Dei demonstrates how God’s desire for human beings in the Garden was to image Him by representing Him as sons and daughters and servant kings and queens over creation in personal relationship with Him and one another in a divinely established covenant with Him and a divinely ordained covenant with one another in marriage and with creation. _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction I n the debate over the role of women in ministry, countless pages have been devoted to discerning the presence, or lack thereof, of male headship in Genesis 21 Likewise, scholars question in Genesis 3 whether male headship is a result of the Fall or a priori creation ordinance. Yet, very little scholarship addresses Genesis 1, particularly the doctrine of the imago Dei, and its implication on this question. Instead, the image of God has been viewed as either common ground upon which complementarians and egalitarians agree on the full equality in being of male and female, or as simply an irrelevant, extra-biblical concept that has been imported upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures.2 However, if Genesis 1–3 do indeed contain “more doctrinal teaching concerning the nature of humanity as male and female, as well as the state of the fallen world, than any other single text in the Bible,” then should not one expect to find in Genesis 1, as 1 This paper recognizes the broad nature of the debate on the role of women in ministry and the difficulty in defining this issue in terms of only two sides. As Gregg Allison notes, “One area in which [the intensity of this debate] manifests itself is the nomenclature for the two positions. As with most names or titles, the word or words used cannot exhaustively describe the designated positions; add to this face that names or titles are patient of misunderstanding.” Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 223, fn. 49. For the purposes of clarity, however, this paper will adopt Allison’s definitions of complementarianism as the position which states that only qualified men may exercise the office of elder in the church and egalitarianism as the position which states that both qualified men and women may exercise the office of elder in the church. 2 An example of the shared view of this doctrine among both sides can be found in Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee, eds., Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 79. & Andreas J. Köstenberger and David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 2d ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010), 22. Few still hold to the latter position as Old Testament scholars such as Gerhard von Rad observe that such an elevation of the place of man in Genesis 1 in light of the tendency of the Hebrew Scriptures to emphasize the great distance between God and man demonstrates the crucial importance of the imago Dei in Judeo–Christian thought. Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 185. 44 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 much as in Genesis 2 & 3, foundational truths for the roles of male and female, not just their existence as two equal sexes?3 This paper aims, therefore, to examine the doctrine of the imago Dei, exploring its biblical meaning and doctrinal implication, in light of the debate concerning the roles of women in church leadership. If indeed Genesis 1:26–27 addresses as much the purpose and roles of human beings as male and female as does Genesis 2 & 3, then it is hoped that such a anthropologically significant passage will yield insight into this long-standing ecclesiological question. Though it is hoped that both sides of the debate will benefit and deepen in their understanding from this study, this paper will argue for an expanded view on the roles of women in ministry from a complementarian position to other complementarians.4 It is the position of this paper that a re-examination of the roles of women in ministry is desperately necessary, as Thomas Schreiner observes, “One could get the impression [from complementarians] that the main burden of Scripture is to limit women in ministry.”5 This kind of self-awareness is vital, as the affirmation of male headship in the church ought not to become a pharisaical invention to prohibit women from rightly serving and contributing to the edification of the local church. Real examples abound of churches that prevent women from engaging in a wide variety of ministries and activities all under the banner of preserving Paul’s prohibitions.6 A biblical understanding of the image of God, however, it is hoped, will shed light on the importance of incorporating women into the life and leadership of the local church, while maintaining a complementarian reading of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. 7 This paper will argue that the doctrine of the imago Dei requires a greater integration of women into the ministry of the local church. Contemporary Uses of the Imago Dei in Regards to Women in Ministry As noted, Genesis 1 has caused little debate among complementarians and egalitarians. The closest thing to disagreement or difference that one can find in the existing scholarship rests in the simple observation that egalitarians tend to employ Genesis 1 as the foundation for their argument whereas Richard S. Hess, “Equality with and without Innocence,” in Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, 79. 3 4 For an example of what this paper defines as complementarianism see Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church., Edmund P. Clowney, The Church, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995)., & John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2005). Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A Survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching,” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), 222. Italics mine. 5 6 One such example includes Redemption Hill Church in Richmond, VA, which prohibits women from public prayer and Scripture reading in corporate mixed gender worship services. 7 It is not the purpose of this paper to examine whether Paul is prohibiting all women from spiritual leadership over the entire local church or only those women who wrongly usurp that power. As aforementioned, it is the conviction of this author that the former reading is the most biblical and theologically sound position. For a more thorough examination of this topic see Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority over Men?” in Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism., or James R. Beck & Stanley N. Gundry, eds. Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001). 45 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards complementarians tend to begin with Genesis 2.8 However, even by the mid1990s complementarians were demonstrating a commitment to Genesis 1 in their treatises as well.9 Today, both sides readily employ and reference the image of God as an essential dogma to their understanding of women in ministry, though each side sees the implications of this dogma differently and, as will be argued, incorrectly or incompletely. For complementarians, broadly, the imago Dei is an affirmation of equality in being for men and women. Raymond Ortlund defines the image as “the soul’s personal reflection of God’s righteous character.”10 This is something that male and female do equally. John Frame defines the image as the resemblance and representation of God in the human person.11 While this includes certain ontological aspects, the imago Dei is also functional in that man and woman are given authority and dominion over the earth, but are under God’s authority. Thus, for Frame and Ortlund, the image of God means that men and women are equal in being and equally responsible for obeying God, but the dogma has little to no implication for how man and woman are to relate to each other in either the family or in the assembly of God’s people.12 Köstenberger and Jones agree with Ortlund and Frame concerning how the image denotes the full equality of male and female. Yet they view the image as functional rather than ontological, writing, “A functional understanding (human exercising the function of ruling the earth for God) seems to reflect most accurately the emphasis in the biblical record.”13 Each of these complementarian perspectives on the imago Dei fail to connect the image with the distinction of humanity as male and female and fail to show any implication for church leadership from the dogma. Instead, the complementarian position, broadly, relegates the duality of sexes to humanity’s commission to procreate, or, in the case of Köstenberger and Jones, to humanity’s need for companionship.14 Egalitarianism fails to make any improvement on the incorporation of the dogma into one’s understanding of the roles of women in ministry. For egalitarians, the image of God is simply a designation of the full equality of male and female in both essence and role.15 Groothuis notes that the use of adām implies the full unity in being and task for male and female. 16 Sexual 8 Aida Bensançon Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 19. 9 As demonstrated by Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 95, 225. 10 Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1–3,” in Ibid., 96. 11 John M. Frame, “Men and Women in the Image of God.” in Ibid., 225 12 Frame does observe the sexual and social differentiation of the male and female in connection with the image of God. However, he argues contra Barth that the image cannot be associated with relationships, though there is a corporate aspect of the image. Simply put, Frame seems to recognize there is something about the image as male and female but fails to actually define what that is. This dynamic of the image will be revisited in greater depth later in the paper. 13 Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 23–24. 14 Ibid., 25. Hess, “Equality with and without Innocence,” in Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, 82. 15 16 Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1997), 125. 46 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 differentiation, therefore, has no connection with the image, but instead is the simple necessity for filling the earth. As Phyllis Bird argues, “Sexual constitution is the presupposition of the blessing of increase, which in the case of other creatures is simply assumed. In the case of adam, however, it cannot be assumed, but must be specially articulated–because of the statement that immediately precedes it.”17 Thus, like the complementarian position, egalitarianism views the distinction of male and female in the image of God as largely the necessary condition for the commission of Genesis 1:28. Both positions ultimately fail to fully account for the implications of the imago Dei on the roles of women in ministry. By viewing the image only in terms of personhood and not maleness and femaleness, complementarians fail to see the reality of the relational and covenantal nature that exists between the man and wife for fulfilling God’s commission.18 At the same time, egalitarians fail to take the full scope of the image into account, failing to see the functional nature of the image and how the image is not liberty for a confusion of roles but a reflection of God’s desire for the man and the woman in their relationship to mirror the Triune God through equal but distinct roles.19 What is required, therefore, is a deeper examination of the imago Dei with a view toward God’s design for the man and wife in the church. Genesis 1:26–27 must be approached not in search of prohibitions or for liberties, but instead in search of God’s created order and commission of the male and female as His image for the edification of His people (now in the church) to the praise of the glory of His grace. As presented in this paper, a comprehensive, multi-faceted understanding of the imago Dei allows one to see how every individual human has equally been endowed by God with the capacity and calling to worship and serve Him. At the same time, being crafted in God’s image has placed each individual in a distinct relationship with their Creator, with their fellow human, and with creation. In other words, not only has both male and female been endowed to image God, they both have been distinctly placed into relationship with each other so that they may enjoy fellowship with God, and that they rightly serve Him in relation to His creation. Simply put, while there is clearly a distinction of roles among men and women there is at the same time a codependence in carrying out those roles. While God ultimately has set the man in the place of spiritual authority/responsibility in the church, the doctrine of the imago Dei demands the male to make full use and incorporation of the female in rightly leading the church. Exposition of the Imago Dei in Regards to Male and Female Historically, the Church has tended to view the image in individualistic terms. Stephen Seamands observes that since Augustine and Boethius, “persons are viewed as free subjects who act on their own volition to establish relationships with others. Relationships, however, are not considered Phyllis A. Bird, “Sexual Differentiation and the Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts,” in Kari Elisabeth Børresen, ed., The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1995), 10. 17 18 Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 24. Hess, “Equality with and without Innocence,” in Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, 82. Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, 125. 19 47 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards essential to personhood.”20 Thus, the overwhelming majority of the discussion on the imago Dei has dealt with the person solely on the individual level. This among other factors illustrates at the outset why and how the Church has arrived at such an incomplete view of the image of God and, thus, why this dogma has been so inadequately applied to the function of male and female in the church. Incomplete, Historical Views The Church has defined the imago Dei as those mental and spiritual qualities that the human individual shares with their creator, whether through physical resemblance or in mental/spiritual capacity to relate to God.21 Stanley Grenz and Marc Cortez, among others, describe this view of the image of God as the structural or substantial view, where the image itself consists of certain attributes or capabilities lodged in the individual.22 This encompasses a person’s capacity for rational thought, which combined with a general lack of exegetical support, demonstrates the weakness of this view, in that the structural view fails to account for a person, whether that person is a fetus, newborn baby, Alzheimer’s patient, or a mentally handicapped person, who does not possess these certain mental capabilities. Are they then determined to not possess the image? 23 Accordingly, most theologians have rejected this view. A second perspective of the imago Dei defines the image in terms of relationship, primarily between God and man.24 The image defines not only man’s relationship to God, however, but necessarily includes his relationship to fellow man as well as to creation. This perspective holds a number of advantages, as will be demonstrated later. However, while it better accounts for the context of Genesis 1 than does the structural view, the relational view still leaves unaddressed significant portions of the text, including mentions of the image in Genesis 5:1 and 9:6 among others in Genesis 1.25 Moreover, the relational view as it stands alone undermines the singularity of human creatures.26 Grenz observes the growing popularity of a third view of the imago Dei, one present throughout Church history but receiving special attention in the 20th century, which he calls “the image of God as goal.” He defines it as “Humankind’s divinely given goal or destiny, which lies in the eschatological future and toward which humans are direct.”27 This view could also be described as eschatological (to use one of Grenz’s own terms), teleological, or even functional, as 20 Stephen Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 33. 21 Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 185. 22 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 142. 23 Marc Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T & T Clark, 2010), 18– 24 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 142. 25 Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006), 217, 221. 2 26 Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, 26. 27 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 177. 20. 48 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 Cortez describes it.28 While nuanced in various ways among theologians who hold to this perspective, generally this third view of the image of God sees the image as setting human beings apart from creation as representatives of the divine being. This view seeks to take into account the wider context of Genesis 1 and the commission given to humanity to exercise dominion, as well as the wider use of the phrase “image of God,” as found in the surrounding cultures of Moses’ day. While advantageous in many ways, this view has been criticized for relying heavily upon extrabiblical sources, as well as for viewing the image solely as something humanity does rather than also is.29 Cortez argues, and a survey of contemporary scholarship on the imago Dei confirms, that the majority of theologians hold to a functional view, though among those who do not the relational view stands as the most dominant alternative.30 In the last ten years, however, an increasing number of scholars have looked toward a multi-faceted perspective of the image, seeing the image as both noun and verb, which the biblical text itself amply supports. Moreover, as noted earlier, the text not only provides a broad vision of the nature of man in regards to God, but also how the distinction of male and female is a crucial dimension of the image. Simply put, as the Scriptures illustrate the nature and roles of male and female in the Garden, one may clearly ascertain the prescribed divine model for the nature and roles of male and female in the church. Genesis 1:26–30 Verses 24–31, of Genesis 1, are structured differently from the other paragraphs of Genesis 1, stressing two aspects in the text.31 The author states that mankind entails male and female and that mankind resembles God in some way. These two statements are then followed by two commands: to be fruitful and to rule over other creatures and creation. For Gentry and Wellum, by organizing the narrative in such a way, the author intends to connect the distinction of sex with the command to be fruitful and the resemblance of God with the command to rule. There is a strong relational element to the image, but for Gentry and Wellum the text itself only points broadly to humanity’s relationship to God and then to the created world.32 An analysis of the terms themselves yields very little additional insight into the association of the image with the distinction of sexes. Grenz, among others, observes that tselem (image) in the Hebrew Scriptures most often means physical representation; however, two occurrences in Psalms 39 and 73 demonstrate a more abstract understanding. Broadly speaking, scholars agree 28 Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, 21. 29 Though it will be explored later on, Michael Williams rightly warns against defining the image solely as a verb, writing, “If Genesis 1 was only referring to a verbal idea, we would then have to say that when we are not performing the task or tasks for which we were created, we would bear no relationship to the image of God.” Michael D. Williams, “First Calling, Part I: The Imago Dei and the Order of Creation,” Presb 39 (2013): 41–42. 30 Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, 30. 31 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 186–88. 32 Ibid., 189. 49 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards that image means representation.33 Demuth, or likeness, bears connotations of resemblance, in that man bears similarity to God, but not as an exact copy of Him.34 Unfortunately, these bare terms by themselves do little to clarify what the image of God is or how the image corresponds to the duality of gender, other than to simply connect humankind to God.35 Accordingly, many scholars have turned outside the text to find a more comprehensive, substantial understanding of the terms, particularly of tselem. Such a study shows that the word “image” cannot be separated from the entire phrase in which it is found: image of God. Grenz observes that the deliberate phrasing of Genesis 1:27, “in the image of God he created him,” drew from the surrounding cultures of Moses’ day. He writes, “The background for the concept of the imago Dei in the Genesis narrative lies in the kingship ideology of ancient Near Eastern cultures.”36 Gentry and Wellum confirm this conclusion arguing that in the culture and language of the ancient Near East “image” carried connotations of rulership and sonship, writing, “The king is the image of god because he has a relationship to the deity as the son of god and a relationship to the world as rule for the god.”37 A Theological Interpretation of the Imago Dei and Its Implications Thus, for the purposes of this paper one can see how the text itself lends little insight into the association of the image of God with the distinction of male and female and what implication that may have on gender roles in the church. Conversely, there is nothing explicitly in the text to suggest that the relationship of male and female is not apart of what it means to image God.38 A theological approach to defining the image, however, demonstrates how the imago Dei must be defined in a multi-faceted perspective of the image as representation, personal relation, and covenant. In this light the distinction of male and female can be seen to have a vital role in fully imaging God. Moreover, as the necessity of man and wife together is seen in each facet of the image, the necessity for a greater incorporation of women into the ministry of the church will become abundantly clear. Image as Representation As noted before, prevailing definitions of the imago Dei have been ontological. The image is 33 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 186. 34 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 135. 35 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 190. 36 Ibid., 191. 37 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 192. Gentry and Wellum argue that, “The divine image is not to be explained by or located in terms of duality of gender in humanity.” Ibid., 189. However, Grenz observes, “The lack of unanimity among Old Testament scholars regarding the meaning of the biblical concept of the imago dei as set forth in Gen. 1:26–28 suggests that the divine image ought not be viewed from too narrow a perspective.” Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 200. 38 50 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 something stable and fixed, thus the tendency to define the image in terms of substance or essence. McFadyen characterizes this view as, “That within us that which is most ‘like’ God turns out to be what constitutes our distinctive humanity.”39 Instead, he suggests thinking of the image in terms of our being in interactive relation with God. Man is defined in this way in terms of God. Mathews concurs, arguing from the Genesis text itself that, “Genesis 1:26–28 concerns itself primarily with the consequence of this special creation, the rule of human life over the terrestrial order, rather than defining the identity of the ‘image.’”40 McFadyen adds, “‘Dominion’ is received from God in the mode of creatureliness and is to be exercised in subordination to God; this is an exercise of human agency. And it is precisely in this exercise of a genuine creaturely, power-in-dependence that the glory and honor of humanity consists: in being called into imaging God.”41 The image is a gesture, it is argued, which points to God.42 Yet Williams warns of defining the image solely in terms of verbal action or task. While concurring that Scripture never identifies the image with any particular aspect of human being, he also writes that, “If Genesis 1 was only referring to a verbal idea, we would then have to say that when we are not performing the task or tasks for which we were created, we would bear no relationship to the image of God.”43 Instead, the image ought be understood as both something humanity is as well as does. The image is representation. It is a particular manifestation of the divine being’s presence and sovereign authority.44 This understanding of the image as representation is perhaps best defined in terms of viceregency, in that man is to hold this position as well as fulfill its associated duties. Grenz connects this concept of vice-regency with the image writing: Images were often though to represent, and even mediate the presence of, one who is physically absent…Drawing these various themes together suggests to certain exegetes…that the concept of the imago dei indicates the role of humankind in mediating within creation the immanence of the transcendent Creator. Viewed from this perspective, Genesis 1:26–27 stands at the pinnacle of the biblical creation narrative that, unlike the myths of other ancient peoples, posits a God who creates the world in freedom as a reality external to himself and then places humankind with creation as a creaturely image of the transcendent deity.45 Man and woman as image are thus viewed as kings and queens over creation, under God’s ultimate kingship.46 Alistair McFadyen, “Imaging God: A Theological Answer to the Anthropological Question?,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 47 (2012): 919. 39 40 Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, NAC 1a (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H, 1996), 169. 41 McFadyen, “Imaging God: A Theological Answer to the Anthropological Question?,” 930. 42 Claudia Welz, “Imago Dei: References to the Invisible,” ST 65 (2011): 87–88. 43 Williams, “First Calling, Part I: The Imago Dei and the Order of Creation,” 41–42. 44 Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, 32. 45 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 199. 46 Stephen G Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, New Studies in Biblical Theology 15 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 59. 51 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards This view of the image as representation accords well with the biblical material. As Alexander observes, “Underlying the creation of the earth is God’s desire to make a dwelling place for himself.”47 Humans are to follow God in transforming the earth into a divine dwelling, and thus, “To this end, they are given a holy or priestly status that enables them to be in God’s presence and serve in his sanctuary.”48 Kline adds, “Creating mankind in the divine image, God honored them with the gift of kingship and bestowed on them the blessing of his holy theocratic kingdom, a sanctuary-paradise.”48 The temple-city of the Garden is to mirror the Glory-temple of God’s heavenly court. It is not just a task for man to complete, however, but also a promise. Kline argues, “Man is made with the glory of an official dominion, a dominion that is holy, righteous and true in its ethical character, a dominion that has promise ultimately of a perfected manifestation in the luminosity of human glorification.”49 Human beings are tasked to represent God in His heavenly court, then, not just as kings and queens but also as sons and daughters. It is vital, though, to note how this is a task which Adam is unable to complete on his own. Whereas Köstenberger sees the addition of the female for the man’s companionship, the image as representation demonstrates the necessity of the female for fully imaging God. As Waltke observes, “Neither the male nor the female on their own can fulfill this mandate; they depend on each other, certainly to reproduce and probably in connection with complementary physical and psychological strengths.”50 What this shows is how both the male and the female complement and fulfill the representation of God and participate with Him in making an earthly dwelling place for the divine presence. This sanctuary-paradise can only be constituted through the complementary work of the man and his wife. Likewise, then, it becomes apparent in the church that following the divine mandate to image God to a lost, fallen world requires the complementary work of the man and his wife. Without transgressing on the divinely-establish boundaries of male-headship in the church, the image as representation calls for the male leadership of the church to recognize the necessity of the female in carrying out the mandates of the church. Just as Adam was to lead but to fully incorporate and depend upon his wife in representing God, elders ought make full use of the gifts, talents, and wisdom of their wives in leading the church to represent God. Moreover, if exercising dominion is ideally done by the man and his wife, any sort of committee/ministerial leadership ought to include both the man and his wife. Again, such married partnerships ought to be in accordance with the Pauline instructions for the family; however, it would seem unfitting in light of the image as representation for stewardship of resources (time, energy, money, etc.) in the church to be watched over by either sex on their own.51 47 T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2012), 126. 48 Ibid., 126. 48 Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 42. 49 Ibid., 43. 50 Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 221. 51 One may counter and ask about the ability of single persons in the church to serve and lead. The question of single elders will be briefly addressed later. Moreover, the question of singleness is an important corollary discussion for this topic, but unfortunately beyond the limits of this paper. A more detailed examination of this question can be found in Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. For the purposes here it may simply be said that one must acknowledge that “singleness” was not God’s design in the Garden. However, singleness has been redeemed in Christ, and is a divine gift for some persons (Matthew 19:12; 52 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 One may ask why both sexes are necessary and not simply just one or the other. If both the man and the woman are the image of God, then ought both be fully able to represent God as individuals? This indeed would be a valid argument, and would seem to support the egalitarian position, if representation covered the full scope and nature of the imago Dei. However, as many scholars have shown, there exists in the image a strong relational component between the male and the female as well. Thus, while the man and the woman are each the image of God, they require one another in relationship to fully image God. Image as Personal Relation The image as personal relation is an aspect of the imago Dei rooted in the Trinitarian nature of the God who is being imaged. Thus, Grenz writes, “The human creature is to be understood within the context of its manifold relatedness.”52 The Genesis 1 text itself drives the reader to the Trinitarian nature of God, and its implication on humanity as the “Let us” of verse 26 shows the nature of the God who man images.53 “Us” reflects the fullness or duality of the Godhead, demonstrating the distinction yet unity of God.54 Thus, the text illustrates how “inherent in the image, then, is the idea that we are made for relationship, that we are only truly human when we are beings-in-fellowship and will only become complete persons through others.”55 This Trinitarian view of the image stems largely from the thought of Karl Barth. Barth’s Church Dogmatics represents a shift in anthropology, “One from seeing the human being as an individual defined by innate faculties to seeing the person as a dynamic-interpersonal agent whose faculties arise only as they exist in relation to others.”56 For Barth the image consists in the correspondence between the human ability to enter an “I–Thou” partnership on the human place and the personal “intradivine” confrontation in the divine being.57 He writes, “Every man as such is the fellow-man of Jesus.”58 Concerning the imago Dei, Price observes that for Barth, “The image of God interpreted in terms of the humanity of Christ is no static thing, but a reflection of a dynamic 1 Corinthians 7:7). That celibacy is a divine gift would seem to insinuate that it is a gift which accounts and compensates for the absence of a partner. Thus, while God’s ideal for man is to marry and make full partnership with his mate, he specially and uniquely gifts some to image Him as a single person. Any emphasis, then, on the complementary incorporation of one’s spouse in ministry leadership does not prohibit called single persons, meaning not just those who happen to be single but those gifted and called to celibacy, from serving in church leadership. 52 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 63. 53 Derek Tidball and Dianne Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 33. 54 Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, 134. 55 Tidball and Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender, 33. Daniel J. Price, Karl Barth’s Anthropology in Light of Modern Thought (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 117. 56 57 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/1, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 183–86. 58 Barth, Church Dogmatics III/2, 134. 53 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards relationship of the triune God.”59 Relation to others is essential, because it flows from the eternal love of the Son for the Father. This is not a direct correspondence, however, for the being of God cannot be compared to the being of man in Barth’s mind. Rather than an analogia entis existing between God and man, there is only an analogia relationis. McLean writes, “The correspondence and similarity of the two relationships consists in the fact that the eternal love in which God as the Father loves the Son, and as the Son loves the Father, and in which God as the Father is loved by the Son and as the Son by the Father, is also the love which is addressed by God to man.”60 The image, then, is a correspondence of love. Grenz takes his cue from Barth, then, adopting the analogy of relation between God and man to ground the imago Dei in relationship or community.61 Rooted in the Trinitarian God, humanity’s being is once and fully a relational being, a partnership, a co-existence. Hall argues that Barth’s interpretation, “turns away from the tedious but entrenched practice of identifying the imago with some “quality of man” and starts us thinking about human beings in relational terms.”62 Barth’s views clearly have massive implications on the distinction of male and female as the image. At the same time, one must exercise biblical caution in attaching too much significance to the duality of human beings with the image. Waltke argues, among others, that Barth went too far in arguing that the image is only male and female together.63 For example, Spencer takes Barth’s views and asserts, “There is no possibility, according to these verses, that Adam, the male, could by himself reflect the nature of God. Neither is it possible for Adam, the female, by herself to reflect God’s nature. Male and female are needed to reflect God’s nature. In a broader sense, relationship in itself between different people reflects God’s nature.”64 Whereas Barth and Spencer rightly see the necessity of the male and female working together in relationship to image God, they emphasize the relationship to the extent that the distinction of the individual is lost, akin to the Trinitarian heresy of Partialism. Waltke notes from Genesis 5:1–3 and 9:6 how individuals are said to be the image of God. At the same time, humanity clearly cannot carry out its full task of imaging God without one another.65 Thus, taking one’s cue again from the Trinitarian nature of God, one must affirm not just the unity of relation in the Godhead but also the distinction (and fully deity) of the persons.66 Colin Gunton writes, ““If God is a communion of persons inseparably related, then…it is in our relatedness to others that our 59 Price, Karl Barth’s Anthropology in Light of Modern Thought, 118. 60 Stuart D. McLean, Humanity in the Thought of Karl Barth (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981), 90. Jason S. Sexton, “The Imago Dei Once Again: Stanley Grenz’s Journey toward a Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 4 (2010): 194. 61 62 Douglas John Hall, Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1986), 73. 63 Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 217. 64 Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry, 21. 65 Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 219–21. 66 Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service, 35. 54 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 being human consists.”67 The Trinity reveals not only that human persons are essentially relational, but also defines the characteristics for healthy personal relationships.68 This reality of the image is vital to one’s understanding of the role of women in ministry. As noted before, for both egalitarians as well as complementarians the image has been viewed to have little to no connection with the distinction of sexes. Bird recognizes the necessity for both the male and female in representing God, but views this as solely for sexual, reproductive purposes. 69 Lowry recognizes the relational nature of the image in the context of the interrelation among the persons of the Trinity, but fails to see the distinction of roles within the Trinity.70 Köstenberger recognizes Adam’s need for the mate, but defines this need in terms of emotion and companionship.71 Each of these views from both sides of the debate demonstrate how a narrow view of the image results in an incomplete view of the role of male and female in imaging God in the church. The differentiation of male and female is more than just a biological or emotional necessity. Tidball writes, “It is a rich offering of God through which bonding takes place and human communities are created.”72 Human sexuality illustrates the personal relation of the image that is to take place. The Genesis image texts make it clear that while similar in rudimentary ways to the rest of creation, sexuality in humans is special and distinct. In other words, human sexuality is a portion of the imago Dei. That the text itself omits mention of reproduction, “after its kind,” elevates the sexual experience of humans. Mathews writes: Whereas in the flood story there is reference to the sexuality of the animals (7:23), in the creation account there is no mention of their sexuality or procreation. This implies that human sexuality is of a different sort from animal procreation: human procreation is not intended merely as a mechanism for replication or the expression of human passion but is instrumental in experiencing covenant blessing.73 This distinction of sex, thus, is a vital component to the imago Dei, and, therefore, must play a prominent role in how humanity images God in the church. Canceran argues, “To be an image of 67 Colin Gunton, The Promise of the Trinity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 116. 68 Oswald Bayer, “Being in the Image of God,” trans. Mark Mattes and Ken Sundet Jones, LQ 27 (2013): 79–81. Bird, “Sexual Differentiation and the Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts,” in Børresen, The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition, 17. 69 Noelle Z. Lowry, “The Image of God in Humanity: Fleshing Out the Bare Bones of Marital Oneness,” Priscilla Papers 26.4 (2012): 13. Lowry sees the relationships of the persons within the Trinity as evidence for egalitarianism, arguing that there is mutual submission within the Godhead. Stinson debunks this errant view of the Trinity writing “What John 5:18-30 illustrates so beautifully is the full equality of the Son to the Father along side his uniform desire to submit to the will, word, and ways of his Father… There is a clear order of relations that does not diminish or negate the mutual, essential equality between the Father and the Son. Further, this coexistence of equality and order is not temporal (for the purposes of redemption only) but is an eternal arrangement.” Randy Stinson, “Does the Father Submit to the Son: A Critique of Royce Gruenler,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6.2 (2001): 17. 70 71 Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 25. 72 Tidball and Tidball, Dianne, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender, 34. 73 Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 174. 55 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards God in a Trinitarian sense is to be a person who is always self-giving and self-receiving, yearning always to be in mutual relationship with others and sharing in their joys and pains.”74 The image as personal relation is further demonstrated in how the male and female together are called to viceregency. Waltke adds, “Neither the male nor the female on their own can fulfill this mandate; they depend on each other, certainly to reproduce and probably in connection with complementary physical and psychological strengths.”75 God’s presence with human persons is a personal presence that constitutes personal relationships. The creation of humanity as male and female, then, serves to constitute the interpersonal relationality in which God has chosen to manifest himself. Cortez adds, “Although the text is not explicit, Adam’s need for an ezer suggests that Adam faced a task that cannot be accomplished alone and that other creatures were not suitable to help him accomplish.”76 Thus, personal relationship best explains how individuals may rightly be called the image of God and yet how individuals are to work in personal relationships to fully image God. Further, image as personal relation demonstrates how the image itself is transmitted as the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve are likewise called images of God.77 Thus, if the imago Dei requires the complementary work of the male and female in order to fully represent God, likewise the imago Dei requires the complementary work of the male and female to fully reflect His personal relational nature. Personal relationships must characterize the leaders and leadership of the church. While this certainly includes cooperative leadership such as a plurality of elders and committee-driven ministry, the image as personal relationship further requires that those who serve in these capacities incorporate their spouses. As it has been demonstrated, differentiation of sexes cannot be disregarded as essential only for procreation. Instead, the distinction of male and female as the image of God is clearly vital for healthy, Godreflecting church leadership. Image as Covenant Closely associated with this aspect of the image as personal relation is the element of the image as covenant.78 Barth argues that Genesis 1 functions as a prologue whose theme is man as God’s covenantal partner.79 Grenz adds: Viewed from this perspective, the point of the narrative of the creation of humankind in the divine image is to indicate that this covenantal partnership is vested in humankind as a whole, rather than in either the king individually or in the male as 74 Delfo Canceran, “Image of God: A Theological Reconstruction of the Beginning,” AsJT 25 (2011): 17. 75 Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 221. 76 Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, 34. 77 Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, 58. 78 The author first came across this understanding of the image from Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, though has since found it to be a prevalent theme in many different anthropologies, as will be referenced. 79 Barth, Church Dogmatics III/1, 181–82. 56 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 such…. God has endowed humankind as a whole with the vocation to act as God’s covenant partner and hence God’s representative within creation.80 Human beings are, therefore, defined in covenant relationship with God and, subsequently, creation. Gentry and Wellum describe the image accordingly as one of sonship (God and Man) and servant kingship (Man and Creation). They argue, “Man is the divine image. As servant king and son of God mankind will mediate God’s rule to the creation in the context of a covenant relationship with God on the one hand and the earth on the other.”81 Thus, the image reflects how God manifests His presence in creation. Cortez observes a temporal direction or narratival context in this understanding of the image as covenant, writing, “The image of God is shown to be something that unfolds over time as God manifests himself in and through the narrative of his covenantal relationship with humanity…. The imago Dei serves to place human persons in a particular theological and narratival context.”82 This covenantal aspect to the image incorporates an eschatological view of humanity, as God’s covenant with man points to an ultimate telos for humanity and creation. This eschatological dimension does not mean that human beings are not presently the image of God, but that they are steadily imaging Him as they continue to respond to His covenant. A key strength, then, to this understanding of image as covenant is that it avoids reducing the image to merely function or dominion. As Bayer argues, if dominion is detached from God, then the image loses all meaning. Understanding the imago Dei as covenant emphasizes how imaging God is largely an ongoing, ever-increasing response to Him, not just a task or duty. A further strength of understanding the image as covenant is that it accounts for the image as male and female, which has massive implications for the study at present. As the creation narrative demonstrates, the covenantal relationship of the husband and wife is to reflect the covenantal relationship of God and man. In this light Grenz argues, “The essential nature of personhood is seen as consisting of mutuality and interdependence.”83 The telic nature of the image means that the man and wife are to be ever moving in covenant with one another, complementarily in covenant with God. Sexton observes, “Representing divine relationality, humanity as male and female suggests that the goal of human sexuality is relational bonding, with marriage being a picture of the relationship God desires to have with his people.”84 Theological Applications for Women (and Men) in the Church Incorporating, then, the representational and personal relational elements of the imago Dei, the image as covenant demonstrates how God’s intention for the male and female is that they work in 80 Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, 202. 81 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 82 Cortez, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, 36–37. 202. 83 Grenz, "What Does It Mean to Be Trinitarian in Doctrine?" paper presented for What Does It Mean to Be Trinitarians? Part 1: Bible and Theology Lectureship, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Springfield, MO, 18 January 2005 (unpublished), 4. Sexton, “The Imago Dei Once Again: Stanley Grenz’s Journey toward a Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27,” 194. 84 57 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards a complementary fashion together in imaging God, including in the local church. Kline writes, “The commission was not to be carried out in starkly individualistic fashion but as an institutional program.”85 Further reflecting on the image as covenant Kline observes that the reality of the male and female both as images of God means that they share not just ontological unity, but also “legal unity,” adding, “Mankind was virtually created a family in that the first human pair was created not just male and female, but husband and wife.”86 This covenant as part of the image is further demonstrated in Genesis 2:24 with the author’s usage of the word “Cleave,” a word often found in ancient treatises as well as in the covenants describes in Deuteronomy 10:20, 30:20, and Joshua 23:8.87 In other words, it was from this relationship and unity that everything else in creation was to be carried out. Kline calls this model, “Tribal Familialism,” writing, “The entire covenantal kingdom program was coordinated with the institution of the family.”88 The commands, the tasks, the duties divinely given to humanity were to be done as God’s image, meaning to be done within the context of the husband and wife covenantal relationship. This was the pattern in the Garden – it was the pattern in Israel; and Kline argues it is to be the pattern in the Kingdom. He writes: When, therefore, in the course of redemptive history the restoration of the original covenant order and program was being portrayed in the experience of the Mosaic covenant community occupying and filling, subduing and ruling a paradise land, the nature of that covenant community was familial…. That tribal-familial model is retained to identify the covenant people even after the engrafted of the elect out of all the nations has taken place under the new covenant.89 This paper confronts the question of how the reality of the man and his wife as the imago Dei should shape how the local church understands the role of women in ministry. It should be clear at this point, however, that this is the wrong question to ask. Not only have complementarians and egalitarians alike failed to take into full account the doctrine of the imago Dei, but also each has failed to see that God does not seek individuals only to image Him, but seeks the man and his wife together. In consulted numerous works on church ministry with regards to gender, very little can be found in considering how churches can incorporate the covenanted married couple into ministry and leadership. From the egalitarian perspective, despite recognizing the relational nature of the image, Derek and Dianne Tidball argue that the equality of being of the male and female in the image simply means that qualified women ought have full access to any position of teaching and leadership in the church.90 Likewise Groothuis does not call for a more cooperative approach to ministry, but simply denies male headship in both the home and the church, arguing that the shared nature of the image insinuates equal access to authority in the church. 91 Arguing from a Roman 85 Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, 70. 86 Ibid., 70–71. 87 Ibid., 71. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid., 71–72. 90 Tidball and Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender, 266–68. 91 Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, 234–39. 58 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 Catholic perspective Børresen argues that a growing recognition of the full equality of being between the two genders in culture demands that the church understand and apply the imago Dei entirely apart from sex. Sexual differentiation is nearly rendered void by the imago Dei.92 Complementarians equally fail to offer a fuller picture of gender and ministry based on the imago Dei. As aforementioned, Schreiner seeks to offer a “less restrictive” view of women in ministry, focusing on “all” that the Bible calls women to in service of the church. Ultimately, however, he views ministry largely individualistically, rather than from a representational, relational, covenantal perspective.93 Frame recognizes the representational aspect of the image, even acknowledging that sexual differentiation represents God, but says nothing about the incorporation of a woman into her husband’s ministry; instead writing that her submission, both in the family and the church, is a way of imaging God.94 House argues that the equality of men and women should empower women not to see their lot in the church as limited, but that her equal status as an image of God empowers her in the “full spectrum of ministry opportunities that are available to her.”95 Egalitarians and complementarians alike have equally (pun intended) failed to account for how in light of the doctrine of the imago Dei the husband and wife can cooperatively minister in the church together, while maintaining the New Testament guidelines for the role of men and women. To reduce the arguments and the sides significantly, egalitarians want to say that in the church all qualified persons can individually serve in any capacity; complementarians want to say that in the church while men and women are equal in being and while only men can teach and lead, there is still a tremendous amount that a woman can do by herself to image God in the church. Suggestions for Moving Forward Pierce and Groothius’s collection of essays, Discovering Biblical Equality, comes close, perhaps, to a more male-and-female perspective on the church, employing Grenz’s term “mutuality,” to describe the cooperative work of ministry.96 But the book still fails to see the task of imaging God in the church as a truly cooperative calling. Rather than recognize how men and women have been each uniquely gifted to work together in serving the church, they argue God gifts people generally without regard to gender. Thus, even as the concluding chapter of the book suggests incorporating couples in ministry, this is argued not because they recognize the importance of married couples in ministry, but, pragmatically, they view couples ministry as a way to help the congregation adapt to seeing women in places of leadership.97 Børresen, “Imago Dei as Inculturated Doctrine,” in Børresen, The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition, 4. 92 Schreiner, “The Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership,” in Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 224. 93 94 Frame, “Men and Women in the Image of God,” in Ibid., 231–32. 95 H. Wayne House, “Principles to Use in Establishing Women in Ministry,” in Ibid., 358. Groothuis and Pierce, “Introduction,” in Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, 13–19. 96 Mimi Haddad & Alvera Mickelsen, “Helping the Church Understand Biblical Equality,” in Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, 489–91. 97 59 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards Spencer goes a step a further, still denying that Paul’s prohibitions pertain to all churches, but at least calls for “shared ministry,” writing, “A couple’s relationship sets a tone for ministry. After all, ministry itself is simple a series of relationships begun in the divine relationship among the persons of the trinity and extended by God through Jesus to human beings.”98 This proposed shared approach sounds promising, even if it is built off a highly debated Barthian view of the Trinitarian nature of the imago Dei. However, ultimately what Spencer calls for is a shared view of the overall ministry of the church, rather than looking at how the husband and wife can share in particular tasks of ministry together. Spencer’s recommendations are helpful, however still incomplete. Finally, Seamands seeks to show how relationships are vital to healthy ministers. His argument hinges on the view that the relational nature of the image requires human beings to be in and maintain healthy relationships for effective ministry. He writes, “Our most consequential failures in ministry are often failures in relationships.”99 Thus, he calls for those in ministry to “relational wholeness,” small group involvement, and healthy family relationships.101 Seamands perhaps does the best job in recent scholarship at showing how the task of imaging God requires a robust relational approach; however, his concern is more on the minister rather than on the ministry, again demonstrating why the imago Dei, particularly in the discussion on gender and ministry, cannot be reduced to just one facet. Seeking then to explore how a church may potentially, given the right context and biblical literacy of that church, incorporate wives into the ministry of the church in such a way that both accounts for the doctrine of the imago Dei while heeding the New Testament’s instructions on women in ministry, one ought to begin with those who hold teaching and leadership authority over the church.100 This first question the church faces is how elders ought to incorporate their wives into their ministries. Evangelicals nearly unanimously agree that Paul does not require an elder to be married.101 However, while it ought not be a requirement, experience shows that elders are nearly always married, and so while it may not be the rule, it certainly is the norm. Elders are those qualified men in the church called to the ministry and administration of the Word.102 Obviously, the Pauline restrictions of this office to men makes it the most difficult to traverse in regards to the incorporation of women. From a complementarian reading of Paul, any full sale allowance of women into this office would violate his prohibitions, and yet, the doctrine of the imago Dei requires the husband and his wife working together to fully image Him. It is easy to see why the church has tended to flock to either full incorporation or full restriction, for anywhere in between would seem to either violate Scripture (as the complementarians argue) or restrict the giftedness of women in Christ (as egalitarians argue). Speaking broadly, though, for any incorporation of women into elder life will heavily depend upon the health and context of a 98 Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry, 168. 99 Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service, 40-41. 101 Ibid., 39-47. 100 Again, it is beyond the purpose of this paper to explore the question of those gifted with singleness in ministry. 101 Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, 214. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, 168. Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2008), 124-25. 102 Clowney, The Church, 212. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, 163. 60 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 44–62 local church, there are many ways elders can image God with their wives. Egalitarians rightly note that many women are gifted teachers and intellectuals. Further, their distinct experiences as women provide them with ample insight into the lives and circumstances of over half the church. It does, indeed, seem foolish to ignore all that a gifted woman could offer in terms of teaching and leadership for the edification of the local body. This does not mean, though, that elders should start allowing their wives to regularly teach or make leadership decisions for their church. Instead, an elder who is truly seeking to image God in the office of elder ought to incorporate his wife in his Bible study and teaching preparation, drawing from her insights and points of application. The wife can further serve as a useful sounding board for his lessons and sermons before they are brought before the church. Moreover, as the church faces budget questions, staff issues, or any general circumstances that require leadership, an elder ought to consult his wife outside of the regular meeting of the elders, drawing from her perspective and wisdom, while still maintaining the biblical reality that he is the one who is charged to exercise authority, and it will be he who is charged to give a final account to God. Obviously, such a cooperative approach to teaching and leading requires a godly woman, who can honor and submit to her husband’s leadership and maintain strict confidentiality. Regardless, however, of one’s position on women in ministry, both sides should readily expect such things anyway from the spouses of church leaders. In other words, the wives of elders should already be godly, mature women, thus this suggestion would not require any structural changes in a healthy, local church, only that elders would do the extra work of learning to draw from their wives in a representational, relational, covenantal context in teaching and exercising authority in the church. As Seamands recommends, small-group ministry is another major opportunities for churches to incorporate women in ministry. Whether in the form of Sunday School or home groups, small groups serve as a vital ministry of the church for both teaching and fellowship. Thus these ministries stand as a prominent opportunity for men to incorporate their wives in the leadership of these groups. Akin to how elders ought to prepare their lessons and sermons, small group teaching and preparation ought to be done by the husband and the wife together. This cooperative approach should then carry over into the small group meetings themselves. Such a shared endeavor requires the wife to honor and submit to her husband but allows for the couple as one flesh to draw from one other in a representational, relational, covenantal manner to image God in the teaching and leading of small groups. Further, this approach allows for those women in the church who are gifted teachers to use their gifts in edifying fellow believers while still modeling honor for her husband. This same technique should be applied to the leadership of committee and mercy ministries as well as the diaconate. Many larger churches utilize committee-based ministry as a way of incorporating members of the body into the ministry of the church as well as a way of alleviating some of the burden of servant ministry from the elders. These are not ministries where teaching or authority are exercised but are simply servant ministries. Even most staunchly complementarian churches see no problem in allowing women to serve and lead in these ministries.103 Thus, in the 103 It must be noted that the New Testament office of deacon is a distinct office from the other mentioned servant ministries in the church, and thus, because it is a specified office, holds a special place and responsibility in the church. Further, as demonstrated by Allison, Hammett, and Merkle, even complementarians disagree on whether or not women can serve as deacons, or if this too is an office restricted to men. It is the position of this paper that the New Testament does not restrict the diaconate to men. See Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, 244-247. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, 198–203. 61 Imaging God in the Church: Implications for the Roles of Women in Ministry | Patrick Edwards call to image God, leadership of and participation in these various servant ministries ought to be done by husbands and wives. Of course those who are single should not be prohibited from serving, as neither should a married person whose spouse is a nonbeliever or unwilling to serve. However, the ideal and the emphasis of the church ought to be on encouraging and equipping holistic couples-based shared ministry. Conclusion The doctrine of the imago Dei demonstrates how God’s desire for human beings in the Garden was to image Him by representing Him as sons and daughters and servant kings and queens over creation in personal relationship with Him and one another in a divinely established covenant with Him and a divinely ordained covenant with one another in marriage and with creation. Now through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, who is the perfect image of God, Christians can now once more image God. Sin continues to hinder this calling, particularly in the marital relationship, in the nuclear family, and in the church. Thus, a challenging road lies ahead of the Church as it seeks to live squarely within God’s redemptive purposes in spite of the many obstacles and roadblocks along the way. The debate over the role of women in ministry in evangelicalism is a highly contested one among brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ. Both sides are to be commended as they each seek to glorify God by equipping and encouraging believers to live fully as God has designed and redeemed them to do. There are many different factors and scriptural questions to be accounted for and resolved in answering this debate; this paper has sought to deal with only one. However, as it is the very first question to arise in Scripture it is hoped that this examination of the imago Dei can shed light on the other questions to follow. In the Garden God established unique roles for the man and his wife, but He also established the man and his wife as one to carry out the task of imaging Him. The doctrine of the imago Dei, therefore, demonstrates how individuals are called and equipped to carry out this task, but to do so in the context of relationship. This paper has been unable to address the question of singleness and divorce, which are important issues to study in light of the imago Dei. However, looking at marriage in creation order and now in the context of the local church, this paper has argued, from a complementarian foundation and perspective, that God has established the husband and wife to image Him, and that this task in the church is best completed through shared ministry. The married couple cannot fully represent God, reflect His personal relational nature, or embody His covenantal purposes solely as individuals; they must do so together, through cooperative, shared ministry. 62 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter — Noah Kelley — _____________________________________________________________________________ What is the significance of the genre of the ancient letter for the interpretation of the book of Philippians? First, we need to be aware of the fact that Philippians is an ancient letter, and the genre affects how the message was shaped, both in terms of how the whole of the discourse flows, as well as how the individual parts of it function. . . . Second, understanding the genre of Philippians as an ancient letter can keep us from reading out a significant aspect of the meaning, namely the interpersonal. _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction P aul’s letter to the Philippians can become so familiar that we forget that it was originally a letter. It is easy at those times to wish that it were not full of historical particularities and personal affairs. We sometimes want something that is more like a systematic theology textbook and less like reading a church’s personal mail. However, God in his wisdom gave us twenty-one letters in our New Testament, and the Spirit chose to use particular communications between historical people to be the inspired revelation about Christ and life in him. We need to know how to read letters as Scripture. This paper will seek to show how an understanding of ancient letter writing can contribute to an understanding of Paul’s letter to the Philippians.1 Section two will examine the notion of genre, and section three will inquire into the practice of letter writing in the ancient world. Section four will examine the subgenre of Philippians within the broad categorization of ancient letter. Section five will look at the characteristics of the ancient letter, and section six will apply this information to the book of Philippians. The conclusion will suggest a few ways that this understanding of Philippians as an ancient letter impacts our interpretation of it. The paper will attempt to demonstrate that understanding that Philippians is an ancient letter will assist the exegesis of the letter both by making the reader aware of the literary conventions that govern the letter and by highlighting the interpersonal dimension of the letter. The Ancient Letter as Genre To deal with Philippians as an ancient letter is to speak of its genre. According to Thomas R. It is by no means to be taken for granted that the integrity of Philippians has been completely accepted in the academic guild. The question of the integrity of the letter has been debated vigorously over the past hundred years. It seems to me that the evidence convincingly supports the conclusion that Philippians is one letter, rather than a series of letters that has been redacted into a whole. However, in light of the purpose of this paper, I will simply presuppose the integrity of the book. 1 63 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 Schreiner, “Perhaps the most important issue in interpretation is the issue of genre.”2 So what is genre? A genre is simply a type of literature.3 A more technical definition is given by D.E. Aune: “A literary genre may be defined as a group of texts that exhibit a coherent and recurring configuration of literary features involving form (including structure and style), content, and function.”4 One might wonder why it is important to understand the genre of Philippians. It would be easy to reason that if the important thing is what Paul’s words and sentences mean, then understanding the letter is simply a matter of syntactical and lexical analysis. But genre affects the structure and the way that the author carries out his theme in such a way that it serves as one of the foundations from which the study of the book proceeds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson say the following: Some have compared interpreting types of literature such as narrative, epistle, or apocalyptic to playing various games such as baseball, basketball, or soccer. In each case, if you want to play the game, you must first acquaint yourself with the rules. Conversely, if you don’t know the rules of a given game, you will most likely be lost and unable to follow a game, much less participate in it. It is similar with interpreting the various genres of Scripture: in order to pick up the fine nuances conveyed by the biblical text, we must learn the ‘rules’ that guide the interpretation of that particular biblical genre.5 In light of these comments, it appears that if we want to “play the same game” that Paul is playing and thus understand what he meant when he wrote Philippians, we need to identify the genre of the book and understand how it affects the author’s intended meaning. Now, on a basic level this is not difficult. As Reed says, “The genre of Philippians is undisputedly that of an ancient letter.”6 What is more challenging is understanding the nuances of the genre in terms of subgenres and conventions. In light of this, we will have to inquire into the concept of letter-writing in the ancient world. Letter Writing in the Ancient World J.L. White, in his book Light from Ancient Letters, highlights the importance of understanding the epistolary genre when he says that “one needs an overview of Greek letter writing to properly 2 2011), 23. Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 3 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 149. 4 David Edward Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1987), 13. 5 Andreas J. Köstenberger, and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2011), 237–238. 6 Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity (JSNTSup 136, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 154. 64 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley assess the special character, if any, of Christian letters.”7 In other words it is important to understand the Greek letter in general in order to see how the NT letters are similar or different from other letters at the time. Ignorance regarding the character and conventions of ancient letters can contribute to misreading features of the NT letters.8 Thankfully, we have a wealth of manuscripts today to compare the NT letters with. White says that “the earliest Greek letter preserved in its original form is from the fourth century BCE.”9 Much of our knowledge of ancient letters comes from the large number of papyri (several thousand) that have been discovered in Egypt, which were preserved by the dry climate. 10 These present a large body of works for studying the Greek letter writing at the time that the New Testament was written. The majority of them are from about 300 BC to 300 AD, stretching from the Ptolamaic period to the Roman and Byzantine periods.11 White says the following: “The fundamental and practical need that created the impetus to letter writing was the need to converse with someone from whom the writer is separated. It was the desire to turn, as Koskenniemi phrases it, apousia into parousia.12 The two major aspects of this were the desire to maintain personal contact and the need to impart information.”13 Thus the fundamental purpose of ancient letters was to bridge the spatial distance that separated people who were variously related to one another. The thoughtful reader will be able to imagine what life was like without modern technology, and see that letter writing was an important way of maintaining relationships and giving and receiving information in the ancient world, whether between family, friends, business partners, or political leaders. Letter writing was important enough in that time that some people received formal instruction in the writing of letters.14 There are even some handbooks that appear to give instruction on how to write letters, including a typology of kinds of letters. Two such handbooks that are extant are the handbooks of Pseudo Demetrius and Pseudo Libanius.15 Though these demonstrate a systematic approach to ancient letter writing, scholars seem to think that there was a gap between the theory and the actual writing of letters.16 7 John L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1986), 3. 8 In addition to the information cited here, see also M. Luther Stirewalt Jr., Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1993); William G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress,1973). White, Light from Ancient Letters, 189. White is dealing primarily with the non-literary “personal,” or “documentary” letter (see below in the discussion of subgenre). 9 Ibid. White’s book helpfully lists over one hundred of these letters with translation and analysis, as well as a helpful analysis of the phenomenon of ancient letter writing. 10 11 Ibid.; Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 162. Notice the theme of “presence” and “absence” even in Philippians: Ὥστε, ἀγαπητο μου, καθὼς π ντοτε ὑπηκο σατε, μὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ παρουσ ᾳ μου μ νον ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσ ᾳ μου, μετὰ φ βου καὶ τρ μου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρ αν κατεργ ζεσθε· (Phil 2:12). 12 13 John Lee White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-body in the Non-literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle ([Missoula]: Society of Biblical Literature for the Seminar on Paul, 1972), 62–63. 14 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 189–190; Stanley Kent Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster ,1986), 32–35. 15 Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 52. 16 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 190. 65 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 Despite that gap, letter-writing was something that was taken seriously. Purportedly, “Artemon, the editor of Aristotle’s letters, likened letter writing to one-half of a spoken conversation and, correspondingly, that he advocated writing a letter in the same manner as a conversation,” with the exception that one was to be more careful in the writing of letters because of the potential for misunderstanding.17 The earliest Greek letters were probably military or diplomatic letters, but “The necessities of ordinary life, aided by the relatively inexpensive and available writing materials of papyrus in the Hellenistic period, increased the writing of letters between private citizens who were separated spatially.”18 These were occasioned by either some pressing issue or the desire to strengthen or maintain relationships between family or friends.19 With reference to the function of letters, White says that “in general, there are three broad purposes served by letters: to convey information, to make requests or give commands, and to enhance or maintain personal contact with the recipient (‘to stay in touch’).”20 The Question of Philippians’ Subgenre While the fact that Philippians is an ancient letter (epistle) seems fairly obvious, it is much more debated as to whether there is a more precise subgenre that could be applied to the letter. Carson and Moo trace the attempts to classify NT letters according to subgenres to Adolf Deissmann, who made a “distinction between ‘epistles’ (carefully crafted, public pieces of literature) and ‘letters’ (unstudied, private communications).”21 However, they note that Deissmann’s view has basically been abandoned in light of the fact that there was likely more of a spectrum of, rather than a sharp division between, literary and non-literary letters, with the NT letters probably finding themselves somewhere in between.22 Various Ways of Classifying Ancient Letters In terms of classifications that are used today, Aune comments, “Aside from Deissmann’s distinction . . . few typologies of Greco-Roman or early Christian letters have been proposed and none widely accepted.”23 In fact there are various classifications that appear to be overlapping. However, it can be helpful to note some of the ways that ancient letters have been classified, both by ancient writers themselves, as well as by modern scholars. Aune mentions that one way that letter have been classified is by content. He notes that 17 Ibid., 190–191. White traces this information from a work in the first to second century BCE called On Style, which was attributed to Demetrius, although (as with the handbook attributed to Demetrius) it is unlikely that Demetrius wrote it. 18 Ibid., 192. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 197. 21 D.A. Carson and Douglas J Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), 333. 22 Ibid. 23 Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 161. 66 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley Cicero appears to discuss various kinds of letters according to their content.24 He also mentions the work of A. N. Sherwin-White, who examined some of the ancient classifications and “synthesizing up to 13 ancient types, suggests eight types: (1) public affairs (including history, anecdotes, gossip); (2) character sketches; (3) patronage; (4) admonitions; (5) domestic affairs; (6) literary matters (e.g., composition, criticism); (7) scenic; and (8) social courtesy.”25 A second way that the ancient letters have been classified is by function.26 This is the approach of the above mentioned ancient handbooks by Pseudo Demetrius and Pseudo Libanius. The elements listed by these handbook are not so much “formal features” or “subjects of discussion” that characterize different kinds of letters, but rather “a typical social relationship in the culture and a customary action or activity which takes place within that social context.”27 As an example, Stowers lists some of the “essential elements” of some of the letters as Pseudo Demetrius describes them: The Friendly Type (philikos)28 1. Two people separated 2. One person attempting to converse with the other 3. A relationship of friendship between the two 4. The writer attempting to maintain that relationship with the recipient The Commending Type (systatikos) 1. Two people separated 2. One person attempting to converse with the other 3. An established positive social relationship between the two (e.g., friendship, family, patron-client) 4. The writer interceding on behalf of a third party in order to initiate a positive social relationship between the recipient and the third party This means that the classification of the letters in the handbooks is apparently by social situation and not by literary features. It seems to be the case that the handbooks give us not so much a list of different ways that ancient letters could be formed but in a sense a list of different social situations in which a letter would be an appropriate social interaction between two people. In terms of their classifications, Demetrius lists 21 kinds of letters, and “provides a brief description and sample letter for each type.”29 Libanius lists 41 kinds.30 However, these authors 24 He says that “Cicero, for example, distinguished between news letters, domestic letters, letters of recommendation, letters of consolation, and letters promising assistance (To Friends 2.4.1; 4.13.1; 5.5.1).” (Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 161.) 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid., 162. 27 Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 54. “This manner of classification is different from the division of literature by a combination of formal, structural, and stylistic criteria such as in the genres of epic, lyric, satire, elegy” (Ibid.). 28 These are reproduced from Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 54 29 Ibid., 52. 30 Ibid. 67 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 appear to have written to instruct on “ideal types for letters,” while recognizing that there would be mixtures of the characteristics of each kind according to the needs of the situation of the writer.31 More recently, Stowers has distilled their categories down to six: “(1) letters of friendship; (2) family letters; (3) letters of praise and blame (functions of epideictic rhetoric); (4) hortatory letters (with seven subtypes: paraenetic letters, protreptic letters, letters of advice, admonition, rebuke, reproach, and consolation); (5) letters of recommendation (or mediation); and (6) accusing, apologetic, and accounting letters (functions of juridical rhetoric), found in letters of petition.”32 Furthermore, he has also identified some of the features of the various types of letters.33 For example, friendship letters “placed a stress on reciprocity.”34 He says that “Reminders concerning the foundation of friendship in past experiences are an important commonplace in friendly letters.”35 Both of these themes find at least some parallel in Philippians, for example when Paul talks about their “fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now” (1:5, cf. 4:15), and when he talks about the “matter of giving and receiving” (4:15).36 A second kind of letter that Stowers discusses is the family letter. He says that although it was “never recognized as a type by the ancient theorists,” there were enough occurrences of this kind of letter to consider it a distinct type.37 This is not surprising in light of the importance of the household in the ancient world, and predictably there were many letters written to maintain the family relationships.38 He thus indicates that the family letter is more of a modern category that is revealed through the analysis of the letters. He says that “Characteristically, the writer of a family letter has been forced to leave home because of economic necessity, the service of government, or the illness of a relative. The traveler then writes back reporting about the situation and expressing his affection for the family and anxiety over separation.”39 This too finds some parallel in Philippians. 31 Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 53. 32 Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 162. His summary of Stowers’ work here is helpful. 33 See Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. The majority of his work is taken up with discussing the various kinds of letters. I simply summarize his work on these two kinds of letters because Philippians is often classified under these headings (see, for example, Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 1–24; Loveday Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-forms and the Structure of Philippians” JSNT 37 (1989): 90). 34 Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 59. 35 Ibid. 36 Scripture translations are the author’s own. Fee says that “the so-called ‘family letter,’ which abounds among the papyri, was not recognized as a distinct type by the ancient theorists. But that is because, as the illustration by Pseudo-Demetrius makes clear, the content of the so-called family letter belonged to the category of ‘friendly letter’” (Fee, Philippians, 2, n. 8). 37 38 Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 71. Families in the ancient world were extended beyond husband and wife and unmarried children. The household would begin with the male head of the house. “Next were his wife and children. The patriarch’s marries sons with wives and children were also part of the household. . . . Under immediate blood relatives came slaves, hired servants, live-in guests, and associated freedmen and freedwomen” (Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 31). 39 Ibid., 71. 68 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley Aune, noting the limitations of these classifications, adds three more categories: “documentary,” or “private letters,” “official letters,” and “literary letters.”40 The documentary, or personal letters are exemplified by the letters that were recovered from Egypt. 41 J.L. White, who has provided some helpful analyses of these letters, located four basic types: 1. “letters of introduction and recommendation” identify a person who is recommended to the recipients.42 This is usually done by introducing the person, indicating their relationship to the sender of the letter, and making a request on their behalf.43 2. “Letters of petition” were written from someone of lower status to someone of higher status to make a request of the recipient.44 3. “Family letters” were taken up almost exclusively with interest in the other person and their affairs.45 They contained news of the well-being of the sender and requests for news as to the well-being of the recipient.46 4. “Memoranda.” These contain either reminders of past or future official or business matters, or other instructions or petitions.47 Official letters were structured very much like the personal letters.48 They were “written from a government head or representative to others in an official capacity.”49 Aune defines literary letters as “those which were preserved and transmitted through literary channels and were valued either as epistolary models, as examples of literary artistry, or as vignettes into earlier lives and manners.”50 They often existed on a spectrum between actual letters that had no literary intentionality behind them to literary creations that merely make use of the letter form.51 40 Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 162–169. 41 Ibid., 162. 42 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 193–194. His very helpful work is found in The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter and Light from Ancient Letters. 43 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 194. 44 Ibid., 194–195. 45 Ibid., 196–197. 46 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 196–197. 47 Ibid., 197. 48 Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 164. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid., 165. Ibid., 165–166. “They exhibit wide variety, including (1) real letters written by an educated person with no thought of publication (e.g., many of the epistulae commendaticidae or letters of recommendation by Cicero, Pliny, and Fronto); (2) real letters written with a broader public in view (Cicero, Pliny, Libanius); (3) ideal letters using a ‘high’ style and written with publication in view (Horace, Ovid, Seneca, Statius); (4) fictional letters using epistolary conventions to frame human interest stories or interesting anecdotes (Alciphron, Aelian, Philostratus); (5) fictional letters composed for insertion in historical and fictional narratives and/or those written as rhetorical exercises as if by some famous person (Achilles Tatius, Chariton); (6) letter-essays (syggrammata; PseudoDemetrius, On Style 4.228), in which essays or treatises on various subjects are prefaced by an epistolary prescript (Plutarch, Fronto).” Aune goes on to list specific kinds of literary letters: letters of recommendation, letter-essays, philosophical letters, novelistic letters, imaginative letters for entertainment, and letters embedded in other works (New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 166–170). He also adds that may of these are simply examples of “framing” other genres of literature within the conventions of the letter (Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 170). 51 69 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 Classifying the Subgenre of Philippians Where does Philippians fall in terms of subgenre? There have been a number of proposals. Fee says that “Philippians reflects all the characteristics of a ‘letter of friendship,’ combined with those of a ‘letter of moral exhortation.’”52 Black sees it as a combination of epistle and rhetoric, “a hybrid letter in which the epistolary body contains a deliberative heart.”53 Alexander sees the clearest parallels with the family letter.54 Reed seems to conclude that Paul made use of the conventions of the personal letter without being bound to them, and that the predominant characteristics of the letter are its personal and hortatory nature.55 White suggests that they resemble “philosophical letters of instruction” except with regard to the “egalitarian aspect to Paul’s sense of presence with his churches.”56 It seems best to say that Paul’s letter doesn’t seem to fit neatly into any one of these subgenres, but has commonalities with different subgenres at different points. Notably, Philippians seems to share some characteristics with the letter of friendship, family letters, literary letters and letters of moral exhortation. What would explain this? For one thing, there seems to be an indication that the various subgenres envisioned by the handbooks of the time were not hard and fast. A study by Heikki Koskenniemi cited by White seems to corroborate this. It indicates that what the handbooks actually “illustrate are a selection of styles appropriate to different circumstances and the tone in which letters may be written. Many of these motifs occur in papyrus letters, to be sure, but the ordinary writer would not have thought of them as specific categories and certainly not as letter types.”57 So even the letter writers of the day may not have consciously thought “now I will write a friendly letter.” Rather, they would simply use the conventions appropriate to the circumstances. Secondly, part of the explanation may be found in the distinct purpose of Christian letters. White says that for Christian letters, while the desire to maintain relationships was clearly present as it was with the family or friendly letter, the unusually long Christian letter in relation to other Greek letters signals the fact that a distinct function for Christian letters is instruction.58 In fact, since Paul used the letters to substitute for his presence, they may have been intended for use in the corporate gatherings of the church.59 “Namely, it was in his capacity as God’s representative 52 Fee, Philippians, 2. “In light of the foregoing, Philippians is rightly called ‘a hortatory letter of friendship.’ The marks of the ‘letter of friendship’ are everywhere. It is clearly intended to make up for their mutual absence, functioning as Paul’s way of being present while absent . . . Thus he informs them about ‘his affairs,’ speaks into ‘their affairs,’ and offers information about the movements of intermediaries. Evidence of mutual affection abound; and the reciprocity of friendship is especially evident at the beginning and the end, and thus is probably to be seen in other parts as well.” (Fee, Philippians, 12). 53 David Alan Black, “The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics.” NovT 37 (1995): 49. 54 Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-forms,” 90. 55 Reed, Discourse Analysis, 174, 178–179. 56 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 219. 57 Ibid., 190. 58 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 19. 59 Ibid. 70 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley that Paul addressed his congregations.”60 It is in comparison with the ordinary Greek letter that these characteristics stand out. So perhaps some of the search for a subgenre for Philippians is “putting the cart before the horse.” The reason for the similarities and differences between the epistolary subgenres and Philippians may be found in the similarities and differences between the social situations of the Christian community and the social situations that made the various types of letters appropriate in the ancient world. Despite the fact that there were recognized distinctions between the various subgenres of ancient letters, it seems to be the case that there were not as much distinct literary features as distinct functions, content, and social situations that distinguished letters. This would mean that the question may not be so much “what letter-form was Paul using?” but “how is Paul’s relationship with the Philippians similar to or different from other structures and institutions?” Three facts about Paul’s relationship with the churches may help answer that question. 1. Paul was an apostle, which gave him the responsibility to care for the churches. This necessitated teaching and exhortation, thus producing a likeness to letters of exhortation and moral instruction. 2. The fellowship/partnership (κοινων α) he had with the churches in the gospel made his letters resemble letters between friends who had a view to mutual benefit. 3. Because the Christian church viewed itself as a spiritual family, there are aspects of this relationships that are bound to resemble family letters. In other words, to the degree that the Apostle Paul’s relationship with the Philippians and other churches resembled any one of these three social situations, there is bound to be found some common characteristics. In light of the above, possibly the best way forward is to note some of the basic characteristics of the ancient epistle, and look for any ways that Philippians shares these characteristics. As far as subgenres go, we should have an open mind about how different kinds of ancient letters might shed light on Philippians, but we should be cautious about trying to match Philippians to specifically with one of them because of the temptation to try to make it fit into a preconceived mold. Stirewalt, seems to confirm this when, after comparing Paul’s letters to personal letters and official letters, says that: It must be said that neither in form, nor function, nor style can Paul’s letters be contained in one category. A person of authority writing communal letters on subjects dealing with faithful adherence to the gospel, polity, ethics, and so on is not writing in a category limited to the maintenance of friendship, the sending of information or a request, and the exchange of greetings.61 Neither does the official letter accurately describe Paul’s writings. “The Pauline letters arose in a unique epistolary setting and may be said to constitute an addition to the epistolary corpus.”62 60 Ibid. 61 Stirewalt, Paul, the Letter Writer, 26. 62 Ibid., emphasis mine. In light of the fact that 21 of the books in the NT are letters, it would be interesting to see what subgenres each of them fall under. However, most of the discussion on the literary subgenres of the NT epistles focus on how to categorize various parts of the books. For example, Schreiner discusses “Diatribe,” “Parenesis,” and “Hymns and Confessional Statements” within the Pauline Epistles (Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, 36–41). Aune discusses “Liturgical Forms,” and “Paraenetic Forms” such as “Vice and Virtue Lists,” and “Codes of Household Ethics” (New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 194–197). Some of the letters seem to be more easily categorized as a whole, such as 1 Thessalonians, which is classified as a “Paraenetic Letter” by Aune 71 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 Characteristics of the Ancient Letter Genre In light of the above analysis of the subgenre of Philippians, this sections will look at the general characteristics of the letter genre, especially as represented by the personal letter. White comments on the usefulness of this exercise: Now, what kinds of things may be learned by studying documentary letters? In addition to the more obvious recognition that Greek letters usually have a tripartite structure of opening, body and closing, we learn that set epistolary phrases are employed within each of these three epistolary parts. The particular form of an individual phrase, or a certain combination of epistolary conventions, frequently signals the basic intention or occasion of the letter.63 This section will seek to examine the parts of the Greek personal letter with the intention of understanding the so-called “epistolary hardware” and how it functions.64 Letter Opening and Closing The Greek letter consists of an opening, a body, and a closing. 65 The opening consisted of the formula “A- to B- χα ρειν” or “To B-from A-,” where A represents the sender and B represents the receiver.66 The sender is in the nominative case and the recipient is in the dative case. The second (New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 206) as well as Stowers (Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 96). However, most of the letters in the NT seems to resist such categorization. Aune’s comments here are helpful: “Early Christian letters tend to resist rigid classification, either in terms of the three main types of oratory or in terms of the may categories listed by the epistolary theorists. Most early Christian letters are multifunctional and have a ‘mixed’ character, combining elements from two or more epistolary types.” (New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 203). One gets the same impression when reading Stowers’ description of the various types of letters and how they are represented in the NT: “Although there are no letters of friendship in the New Testament, some letters employ commonplaces and language from the friendly letter tradition” (Stowers, Letter Writing in GrecoRoman Antiquity, 60). “Although no pure letters of praise exist in the New Testament, Paul makes a significant use of praise in certain parts of his letters” (Ibid., 80). “Exhortation plays a major role in all of the letters of Paul and the Pauline school except Philemon. This is also the case for Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John” (Ibid., 96). “Second Corinthians is even more complex. It seems to mix exhortation, advice, rebuke, invective, and apology. . . . Exhortation and advice are also skillfully mixed in Galatians” (Ibid., 109). These comments highlight the fact that the question of epistolary subgenre has been brought to the fore in Philippians in a way that seems unique among the NT letters (For example, compare Fee’s extended discussion on “Philippians as a Letter” which is prominently placed in the first 24 pages of his Philippians commentary [Fee, Philippians, 1–24.] with the discussion in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, which amounts to a mere paragraph commenting on the form of Paul’s salutation [Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987), 27.]). 63 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 19. This helpful phrase comes from H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Dimensions of Discourse Structure: A Multidimensional Analysis of the Components and Transitions of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians,” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, Edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell and Stephen Levinsohn (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H, 1992), 217. 64 65 White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 7. 66 Ibid. 72 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley formula was often used when a petition was being sent from someone of inferior status to someone of superior status, with the sender placing the receiver’s name first out of deference.67 Alexander notes that: Family letters are particularly likely to expand the bare greeting-formula by the addition of a ‘familial modifier’ (mother, father, brother, sister) and by increasing the fervency of the greeting (πολλὰ χα ρειν, πλεῖστα χα ρειν).”68 This basic structure was flexible. Aune comments that “The basic pattern of Greek epistolary prescripts was subject to various forms of amplification and elaboration. . . . This capacity for amplification allowed the Christian letter to develop its own distinctive features.69 The closing consisted of a farewell such as “ἔρρωσο (ἔρρωσθε), or its modifications; εὐτ χει later changed to διευτ χει.”70 Regarding which of these is used in a particular context, White says that “The former characterizes familiar letters; the latter, petitions and formal complaints.”71 In light of this, note that Acts 15:23–29 and 23:26–30 are standard ancient letters, demonstrating these characteristics fairly consistently.72 These basic introductions and conclusions were also expanded in some cases to include a wish for health with the greeting (“χα ρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι”) and wish or prayer for health with the closing (τοῦ σώματος ἐπιμελ μενος, ἵν’ ὑια νῃς. Ἔρρωσο.).73 There was also what is called the “proskynema formula,” which was “a prayer (often of thanksgiving. . .)” that was included near the opening with the wish for health.74 There might also be included in the opening “the exclamation of joy at receipt of a letter, expressed by means of the convention, ‘I rejoiced greatly (λ αν/μεγ λην ἐχ ρην) at receipt of your letter.’”75 Sometimes there would be included in the closing a request for information or a request 67 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 195. He mentions that letters 20, 37, 50 and 86 in his book are examples of letters of petition (p. 194). These are found on pp. 46, 69, 86, and 86, respectively, and each exemplify this characteristic. 68 Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-forms,” 91. 69 Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 163. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 7. Ἔρρωσο is the perfect passive imperative of ῥώννυμι (“to strengthen”) which means “goodbye” or “farewell” (BDAG, 908). See Acts 15:29, 23:30 (v.l.). Εὐτυχ ω means “to be well off, successful, prosperous,” LSJ, 334. Διευτυχ ω is an intensive form meaning “to continue prosperous” (Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 201). 70 71 White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 7, n. 3. 72 In Acts 23:26–30, the closing “ερρωσο/σθε” is found in a textual variants. 73 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 200. The wish for health attached to the greeting was a characteristic of the letters dated from the second century BCE, while the wish or prayer for health attached to the closing became characteristic of letters by the first century CE (ibid.). The greeting and wish for health above are from letter 53, p. 89 (his translation: “greeting and good health”). The closing and wish for health are from letter 39, p.73 (there is a note that ὑια νῃς should be read ὑγια νῃς; his translation of the closing is “taking care of yourself to stay well. Goodbye.”). 74 Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 163. White, Light from Ancient Letters, 201. White seems to tie the “joy expression” to the body-opening (White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 39). This is often cited as evidence for a new letter at Phil 4:10. But it is not necessarily the case that the expression of joy is tied to the letter or body-opening (ibid.). 75 73 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 for or promise to visit.76 This is warmly affectionate in most family letters, but can be have a threatening quality in some business letters if the sender perceives some irresponsibility in the receiver.77 Both the expression of joy and the request for a visit or letter can also be used to transition to the body-opening (see below). One final expansion to the closing that White indicates was frequent after the time of Augustus was the sending of greetings to or from third parties. The normal word used in these cases was some form of ἀσπ ζομαι. One indication of the significance of these conventions is the fact that the amount of material included in the opening and closing could indicate how close of a relationship the sender and recipient had. White says that “if the opening and the closing are full, the letter is a family letter or a letter between friends in which the ongoing maintenance of friendship is an important consideration. By contrast, if the opening and closing are minimal, the letter is probably a business letter, a legal transaction in epistolary form, or a piece of administrative correspondence.”78 Letter Body The body of the letter is where the actual content of the letter is found.79 White says that “the body is the ‘message’ part of the letter,” so that it is here the information that the sender wanted to communicate to the receiver will be found.80 In terms of body structure, “The body, like the letter in general, may be divided into three discrete sections: body-opening; body-closing; and section between opening and closing (‘body-middle’).”81 Body-opening The body-opening functions as the foundation for the letter by beginning with the point of commonality between the sender and the recipient.82 White says the following: 76 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 202. 77 Ibid. 78 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 19. White summarizes the function of the body and its parts: “The general function of the body is the imparting of information to someone at a distance and the role that the respective body parts play in the execution of of this function may be stated as follows. The body-opening posits the basis of mutuality (i.e., whether disclosing new information; recalling previous communication of which both parties are cognizant; or reassuring the addressee about the present status of a business matter; the body-opening introduces the most pressing matter of mutual concern). The body-middle—once the basis of common concern has been introduced—carries the message forward; either by developing its relevant details, introducing new and equally important matters of mutual concern, or by introducing new but less important matters. The role of the body-closing may be grasped on the basis of its two principle functions: (1) the means whereby the principle motivation for writing is finalized (either by accentuating or reiterating what was previously stated); (2) the means of establishing the basis of future communication.” (White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 64). 79 80 In family letters, the body is completely taken up with the relationship between the sender and receiver of the letter so that there is no real other message contained (White, Light from Ancient Letters, 197; White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 63). 81 White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 9. 82 Ibid., 33. 74 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley The body-opening is the point at which the principal occasion for the letter is usually indicated. In addition, the body-opening must proceed, like spoken conversation, from a basis common to both parties. This is provided either by allusion to subject matter shared by both parties or by the addressor’s disclosure of new information. The body-opening lays the foundation, in either case, from which the superstructure may grow.83 White mentions four devices that are used to introduce the body-opening. The first is the “disclosure formula.”84 The disclosure formula is “a formulaic phrase conveying either the addressor’s desire or command that the addressee ‘know’ something.”85 The second is is some form of a request.86 These are often a request to receive a letter or a visit. “Reproach for failure to write is a common means of opening the body.”87 The writer may also open the letter by asking the receiver to visit or to “send someone (something) to the addressor . . .”88 The third device used to transition to the body-opening is the “expression of joy.”89 White says that expressions of joy can be used for other purposes, but normally expressions of joy “relate to the reception of [a previous] letter and open the body.”90 Finally, the body may be introduced by a reference to previous communication.91 Body-middle The body-middle is much harder to discuss than the body-opening or body-closing.92 While admitting that it is much less predictable, White gives this basic description of its function: “The body-middle—once the basis of common concern has been introduced—carries the message forward; either by developing its relevant details, introducing new and equally important matters of mutual concern, or by introducing new but less important matters.”93 In a way, White wants to say that the body-middle is just the part between the body-opening and the body-closing.94 However, it is helpful to affirm at least what he says above, which is that the body-middle “moves the message forward.”95 83 Ibid.. 84 Ibid., 11–15, 66. 85 Ibid., 11. 86 Ibid., 34–38. 87 Ibid., 34. 88 Ibid., 37. 89 Ibid., 39–40. 90 Ibid., 39. 91 Ibid., 40–42. 92 Ibid., 51, 10 n. 6. 93 Ibid., 64. 94 Ibid., 10 n. 6. 95 Ibid., 51. 75 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 He furthermore mentions a number of devices used to mark transitions within the letter body-middle. He says that significant transitions can be indicated by: “reassurances,” “the stereotyped use of δηλ ω,” the “writing formula” (“I wrote that . . .”), “receipt-transfer statements” (especially in business letters), and “use of the vocative.”96 Devices that can be used in more or less significant transitions are: “the perfect indicative . . . and participle,” “forms of the disclosure formula,” “verbs of saying,” the tandem conjunction δε κα ,” and “περ with the genitive case.”97 Body-closing White says that the body-closing functions in two ways: first, “as a means of finalizing the principal motivation for writing (by accentuating or reiterating what was stated earlier in the body),” and second, “as a means of forming a bridge to further communication.”98 In other words, it wraps up the discussion by reaffirming the main point of the letter and provides a point of contact for the next communication. White also mentions four devices used to introduce the body-closing: statements that express the reason why the sender wrote (disclosure formulas),99 statements that encourage the recipient to “be responsive” to the request made in the letter,100 statements telling the recipient to write if they need anything (usually included as a courtesy in letters making request of something as an offer to ‘pay back’ the recipient),101 and statements indicating a coming visit from the sender (which can be viewed as good, bad or neutral by the recipient).102 However, it is not necessary that all letters have one of these devices to indicate the body-closing.103 Two Examples In light of the above discussion, it may be helpful to show the reader what this looks like in actual letters. Letters 104A and 104B are two “family letters” sent from a young man who had recently become a Roman soldier to his mother. Letter 104A exhibits the standard letter opening (A- to B- χαιρε ν) in lines 1 and 2. There is then the προσκ νημα formula in lines 3–5a. The body-opening consists of lines 5b-9a, where Apollinarios establishes his own situation and expresses interest in his mother’s situation. The body-middle seems to be lines 9b-11a, where he expresses the most pertinent aspect of his situation 96 Ibid., 66. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid., 42. 99 Ibid., 45–46 100 Ibid., 46. 101 Ibid., 48 102 Ibid., 49–51. “Many letters do not conclude the body in any identifiable manner. Nonetheless, a sufficient number of identifiable conventions gravitate toward the end of the body that we may attribute a discrete purpose to them. In general, these conventions appear in the part of the letter where the purpose of the communication is completed.” (White, Light from Ancient Letters, 205). 103 76 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley (οὔπω . . . ἀν βην ἰς Ῥώμην καὶ διετ γην).104 The body-closing consists of 11b-16a, where he discusses future communication. The letter closing extends from 16b-21, where he sends greetings (16b-19), gives a closing prayer for health (20), and concludes with a note about the date of his arrival at the present location (21). There is also some additional matter (lines 22–25) in the form of a postscript written with a different handwriting and an address for the sake of delivery. The passage can thus be outlined as follows: 1–5a: Letter Opening 1–2: Address and greeting 3–5a: Prayer 5b-16a: Letter Body 5b-9a: Body Opening 9b-11a: Body-middle 11b-16a: Body Closing 16b-21: Letter Closing 16b-19: Greetings 20: Farewell prayer for health 21: Note about the date of sender’s arrival 22–25: Additional Matter 22–23: Postscript 24–25: Outside Address Letter 104B can be similarly outlined. The letter opening is again the standard formula of address and greeting in lines 1–2a (A- to B- χαιρε ν) and προσκ νημα formula in 2b-4. Lines 4b-9a represent the body-opening, which begins with the disclosure formula and vocative (γεινώσκειν σε θ λω, μ τηρ, ὅτι . . .) and establishes his situation. As with letter 104A, the body-middle is very short (lines 9b-11a), and simply expresses his desire that his mother take care of herself and not worry about him because he “has come to a good place” (ἐγὼ γὰρ εἰς καλὸν τ πον ἦλθον). Lines 11b-14a represent the body-closing, in which he requests future communication and states his intention to likewise send another letter as the situation permits.105 The letter closing consists of lines 14b-21 which contain the greetings (14b-20) and prayer for health (21). Lines 22–23 contain the address for delivery. This letter can be outlined as follows: 104 As mentioned above, the family letter is concerned primarily with the exchange of news and interest in the affairs of one another. As such it is hard to pinpoint a real body-middle since the function of the family letter is in many ways the same as the body-opening and body-closing—namely to establish personal contact (see White, Light from Ancient Letters, 197; White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 63). As such, the body-middle, as I have interpreted it here, is much smaller than the body-opening and body-closing. Note the phrase used for the polite request: καλῶς δὲ ποι σ<εις> γρ ψασ{σ} μοι ἐπιστολὴν. White says that “the most common means of making requests is to employ some form of the polite convention καλῶς ἂν οὖν ποι σαις, which means ‘therefore you would do well to . . . ,’ or simply phrased, ‘Please. . . .’” (White, Light from Ancient Letters, 204; cf. also White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 18; see below on Phil 4:14). 105 77 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 1–4a: Letter Opening 1–2a: Address and greeting 2b-4a: Wish for health and prayer 4b-14a: Letter Body 4b-9a: Body opening 9b-11a: Body-middle 11b-14a: Body closing 14b-21: Letter Closing 14b-20: greetings 21: Farewell prayer for health 22–23: Outside Address These two family letters are helpful to get a sense of how the ancient letter “works.” It now remains to bring all of this information to bear on Paul’s letter to the Philippians to see what fruit this study can provide. Philippians as an Ancient Letter A quick overview of the preceding material will show that in terms of structure, the non-literary letters have the potential to help us to understand how Philippians “works.” The following will discuss the ways in which Philippians reflects the basic characteristics of the Greek letter and how understanding the Greek letter helps us to understand the structure of Philippians. By way of introduction it is important to note one important difference between Philippians and other personal letters, namely, the length.106 Philippians, while sharing a number of genre characteristics, is in comparison much longer and more rich. In this sense it shares more in common with the literary letter than it does the personal letter. The Opening (1:1–11) The opening of Philippians displays several of the characteristics of the ancient letter. For one thing, the stereotypical opening, “A to B, greeting” is represented by Παῦλος καὶ Τιμ θεος . . . πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγ οις . . . τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλ πποις σὺν ἐπισκ ποις καὶ διακ νοις, χ ρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρ νη . . . (Phil 1:1–2). Notice that the normal greeting χαίρειν has been “Christianized” to χ ρις.107 In addition, Paul has added the typical Hebrew greeting shalom (in Greek, εἰρ νη).108 Another significant aspect is the fact that all of the elements of the opening have been expanded from what is usually a simple mention of sender, recipient and greeting. While it was not unusual for writers of family letters to expand this by adding “familial modifiers,” here Paul’s expansion, in addition 106 “. . . while nearly all the papyrus letters are relatively brief, many early Christian letters are quite lengthy” (Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 160). 107 Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 456. 108 Fee, Philippians, 70. 78 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley to any relational reasons, is likely didactic, helping the readers to understand who he is, who they are, and the source of the grace and peace that they enjoy.109 The letter opening also seems to include the thanksgiving (1:3–8) and prayer (1:9–11).110 This seems to parallel the προσκ νημα formula of the personal letter which seems to have frequently been part of the letter opening.111 It is widely acknowledged that Paul’s opening prayer and thanksgiving “is a formal device serving to announce and introduce the topics of the letter,” and that seems to be the case here as well.112 As with the greeting, the thanksgiving and prayer have been expanded. In addition to the thematic and didactic function, they also highlight the warmth of relationship between Paul and the church, as evidenced by the way he refers to the joy he has in prayer for them because of their fellowship (1:3–4) and the way he has them “in his heart” and “longs for” them (1:7–8). White’s comments about the relative size of openings and closings with reference to whether the letter is a personal letter or an official letter are helpful here.113 The substantial amount of material in the opening reveals the fact that Paul is using this letter at least in part to express and maintain his relationship with this congregation. Body (1:12–4:20) The body of Philippians has many noteworthy features, and will be discussed in terms of bodyopening, body-middle and body-closing. Body-opening (1:12–30) The body-opening seems to be evident from the noticeable transition in 1:12 which is marked by the conjunction δὲ, the disclosure formula (γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βο λομαι) and the use of the vocative (ἀδελφο ).114 The interpersonal/pragmatics dimension of the letter is evident in the discussion of the circumstances of the two parties. Paul wants them to know τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ in 1:12, and says that he hopes to hear good things when he hears τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν in 1:27.115 The circumstances of Paul 109 On “familial modifiers,” see Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-forms,” 91, and the discussion above. 110 Schreiner says that “The last element of the opening is the prayer.” (Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, 28). This is to be distinguished from Black, who sees 1:3–11 as the body-opening (Black, “The Discourse Structure of Philippians,” 24). While Black rightly points out the parallels between 1:3–11 and the body-closing, 4:10–20, it seems to be the case that from a genre-critical perspective, 1:3–11 fits better with the letter openings of personal letters and 1:12–30 fits better as the body-opening. Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-forms,” 91, 94 for the parallel between Phil 1:3–11 and the προσκ νημα formula; See White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter (pp. 8, 32) for the προσκ νημα formula as a part of the letter opening. 111 112 Robert Jewett, “Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians” NovΤ 12 (1970): 53. 113 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 19. 114 Bloomquist begins the body-opening at 1:12, but limits it to 1:12–14 (L. Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians, JSNTSup 78 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 107). Regarding the phrase “τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ,” “This expression was a common one in the contemporary world and was used to describe the situation of a person.” (Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on 115 79 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 and the Philippians are introduced here in the body-opening because the serve as the occasion for the letter. Furthermore, throughout the letter of Paul informs them of his circumstances (codified syntactically by indicatives) and admonishes them regarding theirs (by imperatives). It is interesting that an analysis of the syntax of the letter shows that there are a number of disclosure formulas that are syntactically prominent in the sections where Paul is informing them of his circumstances, and a number of imperatives that are syntactically prominent in the sections where Paul is addressing their circumstances. Furthermore, one of the benefits of analyzing the book of Philippians as an ancient letter is that it helps to highlight the interpersonal elements. When we read the Scriptures, whether privately or in the church, it is easy to try to read out the interpersonal elements in order to emphasize the universal theological propositions because what is universal is more readily applicable. However, when Paul wrote to the Philippians, he used the universal theological propositions as support for his interpersonal exhortations, and this is reflected in the fact that the universal theological statements are often syntactically subordinate to the interpersonal.116 In addition to the circumstances that are the occasion for the letter, Paul also introduces in the body-opening a basis of mutual interest and common ground in the “progress of the gospel” (1:12, 18, 25, 27). Paul also gives the main point of his letter here, the exhortation to live as worthy citizens of the gospel (μ νον ἀξ ως τοῦ εὐαγγελ ου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτε εσθε).117 Note that with this imperative, Paul moves away from the “friendship” letter which is based on equality. Here Philippians begins to sound more like the “philosophical letters of instruction” that White mentioned above.118 There are a few other elements of the letter genre that are apparent in the body-opening. First, There is the use of the disclosure formula (“I know that . . .”) that forms an inclusio at 1:19 and 1:25.119 Second, the theme of “absence/presence” that is a major part of a personal letter is found at 1:26 (τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσ ας π λιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς) and 1:27 (εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκο ω). This is a theme that repeats itself throughout Philippians (cf. 2:12). the Greek Text [NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991], 89). See also Fee’s outline of Philippians where “Paul’s ‘affairs’” and “the Philippian’s ‘affairs’” help him to outline the book (Fee, Philippians, 54–55). He outlines it as follows: I. Introductory matters (1:1–11), II. Paul’s “affairs” – Reflections on imprisonment (1:12–26), III. The Philippians’ “affairs” – Exhortation to steadfastness and unity (1:27–2:18), IV. What’s next – Regarding Paul’s and their “affairs” (2:19–30), V. Their “affairs” – Again (3:1–4:3), VI. Concluding matters (4:4–23). For parallels with ancient personal letters, see White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 32–33. See also Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-forms,” 95. This is especially exemplified by the treatment of the so-called “Christ-hymn” of 2:5–11. A number of people have gone to this passage to make appeals for particular models of Christology; however, it is syntactically subordinate to the call to humble unity (2:1–5) and is supportive of that theme. 116 “. . . the body-opening introduces the most pressing matter of mutual concern. . .” (White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 64). 117 118 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 219. Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians, 108; George H. Guthrie, “Cohesion Shifts and Stitches in Philippians,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson. JSNTSup 113 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 42. For “disclosure formulas,” see White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 11–15. 119 80 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley Body-middle (2:1–4:9) The body-middle of Philippians, in accordance with the basic function of the body-middle of an ancient letter, carries forward the message of the body-opening (1:12–30). If the central message of the body-opening is “live as good citizens of the gospel,” then the body-middle, and most directly 2:1–18, tells them how to do that. The new section opens with the conjunction οὖν, which indicates both a sense of “development” in the discourse as well as “continuity.”120 Interestingly, the most syntactically prominent clause in 2:1–11 is πληρώσατ μου τὴν χαρὰν. It is functioning as an orienter for the content clause ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε.121 The main point of this section seems to be to “have the same mind,” but what is semantically prominent is the command “fill my joy . . .” This is heavily weighted toward relational/pragmatic dimension even though it is syntactically more prominent. At 2:12 there is another transitional formula (ὥστε + the affectionate vocative). This seems to be a minor transition because it introduces a section that is exhoratative and focused on the Philippians circumstances, which gives it cohesion with 2:1–11. Paul again highlights his absence (καθὼς π ντοτε ὑπηκο σατε, μὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ παρουσ ᾳ μου μ νον ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσ ᾳ μου). This is followed by two exhortations joined by asyndeton. This section could be summarized as follows: “be diligent to work out your common salvation before the world so that the gospel advances.” There is another transition at 2:19 (introduced by δ ) that seems more significant because Paul moves from exhortation to disclosure of plans (2:19–30). He speaks here again of his desire to know their circumstances (τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν in 2:19), highlighting again his absence and concern for them. These two paragraphs (speaking of Timothy in 2:19–24 and Epaphroditus in 2:25–30) have some resemblance to the letters of recommendation (see especially 2:22, 25, 29 where they are commended for their lives), although no request is made on their behalf except to receive and honor them (2:29).122 There is another transition at 3:1 which is marked by τὸ λοιπ ν and a change from Paul’s plans to exhortation. Noteworthy at this point is a “hesitation formula” that is discussed at some length by Reed in Discourse Analysis.123 The hesitation formula was a device used in ancient writing where disclosure formulas were intensified “by adding either (i) a form of the verb ὀκν ω (‘to scruple, hesitate, delay’) which is often negated or, more rarely, (ii) the adverb ἀ κνως (‘unhesitatingly, without hesitation’) so as to indicate no hesitation on the part of the author concerning some matter.”124 In Phil 3:1, Paul says that τὰ αὐτὰ γρ φειν ὑμῖν ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ ὀκνηρ ν, ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλ ς. Reed concludes that Paul has modifying or adapting the hesitation formula “to indicate that ‘writing the 120 Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), 43. 121 An orienter is a proposition that “introduces a unit” (John Beekman, John Callow, and Michael F Kopesec. The Semantic Structure of Written Communication, 5th revision [Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1981], 93). 122 On “letters of introduction and recommendation,” see White, Light from Ancient Letters, 193–194. 123 Reed, Discourse Analysis, 228–238, 246–265. 124 Ibid., 231. 81 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 same things’ was not done in a ‘hesitating’ manner . . .”125 In other words, Paul is reaffirming his friendship to them by communicating that he was not hesitating to fulfill the obligations of his relationship with them.126 There are two sets of admonitions in 3:1–2conjoined by asyndeton (3:1 and 3:2). If Reed’s analysis is right, then this would indicate that both the exhortation to rejoice and the exhortation to watch out for false teachers are both rooted in his friendship to them. As was mentioned above, much of the material that is oriented toward the Philippians’ situation is expressed in imperatives that are supported by theological reasoning. That is no less the case here. 3:3–16, Paul’s spiritual autobiography, is syntactically subordinate to the exhortations of 3:2. There seems to be a minor transition at 3:17, where Paul uses the vocative and returns to the use of the imperatives. This section (3:17–21) belongs to the greater section of 3:1–21. It is tied to the previous material in that Paul describes himself in 3:4–16 so that he might be an example for them, and then in 3:17 he tells them to follow him. There is another transition at 4:1 marked by the ὥστε + the vocative (which is heavily weighted with adjectives). He seems to be saying that “the above is how you should stand firm, as I commanded in 1:27.”127 It seems like there is another transition at 4:2 by means of asyndeton and change from general exhortations to specific and blunt exhortations of individuals. It is significant to note that in this whole letter in which he frequently speaks to the readers with great affection and rejoicing, this is the only place in which he calls on them by name. There is a transition back into general exhortations in 4:4, possibly marked by the use of 128 χα ρω. 4:8 seems to mark the last transition within the body-middle by means of τὸ λοιπ ν + the vocative. This seems to mark the closing exhortation of the body-middle. Body-closing (4:10–20) Though Paul transitions with the use of the conjunction δ , there do not seem to be any of the formulaic devices that are often used to indicate a transition to the body-closing. This is not problematic since the letters didn’t always contain formulaic devices to indicate transitions to the body-closing. Nevertheless there are indications that 4:10–20 function as the close of the body. First, moves from exhortation to commendation. Since much of the letter has consisted of exhortations, this change may be one indication that he is bringing the body to a close. One good reason for this may be the fact that Paul wants to end the letter on a positive note and emphasize the relationship that he has with the Philippians as the point of contact for the next communication, rather than the exhortations he has just given. Second, at least one body-closing commonplace that appears in this section is the mention of “doing well” (4:14). White notes that: 125 Reed, Discourse Analysis, 250. 126 Ibid., 250–53. I take the οὕτως as anaphoric rather than cataphoric because it seems to lack an anchor point in 4:2 (as it has in for example, 3:17 where you find οὕτω . . . καθὼς). However it is a difficult decision that I am not incredibly confident about. 127 Guthrie mentions that “the ‘rejoice’ motif” occurs at several transitions in Philippians (“Cohesion Shifts and Stitches in Philippians,” 45–46). 128 82 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley [T]he most common means of making requests is to employ some form of the polite convention καλῶς ἂν οὖν ποι σαις, which means ‘therefore you would do well to . . . ,’ or simply phrased, ‘Please. . . .’ This phrase occurs hundreds of times, usually with a conjunction meaning ‘therefore,’ and almost always as a transitional statement in the body, following some introductory explanation of the request which it expresses.129 It seems likely that Paul’s use of καλῶς ἐποι σατε is a modification or adaptation of this convention, though he is making a commendation rather than a request. There are two other conventions in this section worth mentioning in passing. The first is the disclosure formula in 4:15 (οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππ σιοι). The second is the reference to λ γον δ σεως καὶ λ μψεως. This latter point is said by Fee to be a “commercial idiom.”130 It brings the letter back to resembling a friendship letter with the emphasis on mutuality. Letter Closing (4:21–23) Philippians closes with a fairly standard series of greetings to and from other believers (4:21–22). the letter as a whole is closed with a benediction (4:23), which may function in place of the “closing wish for health.”131 129 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 204; cf. also White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 18. 130 Fee, Philippians, 443, n. 20. 131 Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-forms,” 94. 83 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 63–85 In light of the preceding analysis, the following outline of the book can be suggested:132 1:1–11: Letter Opening 1:1–2: Address and greeting-formula 1:3–11: Thanksgiving and prayer 1:12–4:20: Letter Body 1:12–30: Body-opening 1:12–26: Paul’s situation 1:27–30: Paul addresses their situation (thesis: live as good citizens of the gospel) 2:1–4:9: Body-middle 2:1–18: Be diligent to live in humble unity in imitation of Christ 2:19–30: The affairs of Paul’s coworkers (implied: emulate exemplary men) 3:1–4:1: Rejoice in the Lord, beware of false teachers, and follow the example of those who follow Paul (implied: reject pride and don’t become an enemy of Christ) 4:2–9: Live as good citizens by being unified in the Lord 4:10–20: Body-closing: Commendation of the Philippians for participating in the gospel ministry with Paul (implied: reaffirmation of their relationship) 4:21–23: Letter Closing: Greetings and benediction 4:21–22: Greetings 4:23: Benediction This outline demonstrates how the genre of ancient letter influences the structure of the book. Paul opens his letter in a way that modifies the standard forms (1:1–11), and then establishes in the body opening both his situation and his concern for the Philippians’ situation (1:12–30). It is here that Paul introduces the thesis to “live as good citizens of the gospel,” the theme that he carries forward in several sections of the body-middle (2:1–4:9). In the body closing he commends the Philippians for their participation in the ministry of the gospel, which functions as a reaffirmation of their relationship so that there is a positive note that forms the basis for the next communication. Finally, Paul closes the letter with somewhat standard greetings, but with a benediction in place of the typical prayer or wish for health. Conclusion: The Contribution of Genre to the Interpretation of Philippians What is the significance of the genre of the ancient letter for the interpretation of the book of Philippians? First, we need to be aware of the fact that Philippians is an ancient letter, and the genre affects how the message was shaped, both in terms of how the whole of the discourse flows, as well as how the individual parts of it function. Understanding this can help the interpreter identify how Paul has departed from the conventions of his day and why. It can also help the reader 132 While this paper has focused on the genre-critical study of the book, this outline is also influenced by Discourse Analysis approaches such as those by Black and Guthrie (see Black, “The Discourse Structure of Philippians,” and Guthrie, “Cohesion Shifts and Stitches in Philippians”). 84 Reading the Book of Philippians as an Ancient Letter | Noah Kelley to understand the use of formulaic phrases so that they are not over-interpreted or underinterpreted. This will include interpreting them in light of how the phrases “work” (pragmatics) and not just what they literally say. Second, understanding the genre of Philippians as an ancient letter can keep us from reading out a significant aspect of the meaning, namely the interpersonal. Understanding that in Scripture, God has given us letters from the Apostles to particular churches can keep us from trying to reduce the letters to merely universal theological principles. It also helps us remember that in terms of the text’s meaning, often the universal theological principles are given as support for the interpersonal and exhortative meaning, which is frequently more prominent. In light of these two uses for a genre-critical reading of Philippians, we can read Philippians as a letter from God to us, through a letter from Paul to the church at Philippi. 85 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson Choosing the Right Lens: Is a Christotelic or Christocentric View of Scripture Correct? — Christopher Dickerson — _____________________________________________________________________________ While a simple mention of Christ by name is not considered christocentric or christotelic, neither does the preacher have to reach Bethlehem or Golgotha to be christological. Christotelic preaching occurs when the message clearly reveals Christ’s messianic character, redemptive purposes, and restorative acts. _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction yeglasses are today’s fashion accessory! From frames, to shades, to lenses, the choices are seemingly endless today. But the choice of the lens is critical to what the wearer will see on the other side. The lens is the piece of glass or other substance that is curved in order to concentrate or disperse light rays. Lenses today differ from polycarbonate used in athletics, to polarized used to reduce glare, to photochromic used to tint sunlight, and all in between. The lens has a definite effect on what the wearer sees on the other side. In the same way, the interpreter of the Bible must choose the right lens for interpreting the Bible. Before any preacher can faithfully stand in the pulpit and proclaim the Word of God, he must choose the right lens. While there may be a long list of possibilities to choose from for the modern preacher, two are of great concern to the evangelical pastor who wants to preach Jesus regularly: christotelic and christocentric. The 18th century British preacher, Charles Spurgeon, once quipped: E Keep to the gospel, then, more and more. Give the people Christ and nothing but Christ. Satiate them, even though some should say that you also nauseate them with the gospel. . . . By the roadside, in the little room, in the theatre, anywhere, everywhere, let us preach Christ. Write books if you like and do anything else within your power; but whatever else you cannot do, preach Christ.1 While that may sound like great advice, is it faithful to the biblical text? Can Christ be legitimately preached from any and every text? This is the goal of christocentric preaching, to preach Jesus from every text. But history will show such preaching has often led to wild allegory. Is there a better, more faithful way to preach Christ from all Scripture? Indeed there is. A christotelic view of Scripture offers a potentially more consistent understanding of the whole of Christian Scripture as compared to merely a christocentric view. 1 Charles H. Spurgeon, An All-Around Ministry (repr., Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2002), 117, 127. 86 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 Hermeneutical Assumptions Two assumptions are critical to make before proceeding. First, an assumed goal of hermeneutics is to determine the authorial intent of the text. That is to say, the authors of Scripture had a unique purpose in their writing. This is not to neglect the dual authorship of the Bible. Rather, the author’s intended meaning must take precedence over that of the modern reader. The original author, both human and divine, wrote a unique message. This message is the goal of the discovery process in hermeneutics. While the canonical context of a text is important, it must not supersede the original context that led the author to write in the first place.2 Yet, it is understood that no one can truly know the author’s intended meaning as no one can get in the mind of a dead author today. The importance of discovering the author’s intended meaning leads to the second assumption. The chosen method of discovering this intended meaning is by grammatical-historical exegesis. Andreas Köstenberger and Richard Patterson offer an appropriate model of such with their hermeneutical triad. They state, “The interpretive task consists of considering each of the three major dimensions of the hermeneutical triad—history, literature, and theology—in proper balance, with the first two elements—history and literature—being foundational and with theology at the apex.”3 It is through such diligent study of the text that one is more likely to come closer to the author’s intended meaning. Dennis Johnson suggests that perhaps the grammatical-historical method of exegesis does not go far enough when it comes to christological interpretation. While he does not discredit the method, he does put it up to the following challenge: Specifically, we need to be self-critical enough to entertain the possibility that our discomfort with apostolic hermeneutics is a signal that grammatical-historical exegesis falls short if it leads to exclude or ignore the redemptive-historical setting of the fulfillment of God’s covenantal relation to his people in Jesus the Messiah, as that setting appears in the documents of the New Testament, which completed the canon of the written Word of God. If the Scriptures are indeed the Word of the Creator who sovereignly directs world history to his intended outcome, and if the Old Testament is eschatologically oriented toward a fulfillment beyond itself, the modern scholar who rejects at the outset the possibility that Jesus’ life provides an indispensable context for interpreting the Old Testament is as reductionistic in one direction . . . as Origen and his allegorist successors were in another.4 In light of the discussion to follow, Johnson’s critique of the grammatical-historical method is instructive. Thus, proper exegesis will seek a proper balance between the two extremes. Ed Stetzer, “Introduction,” in Christ-Centered Teaching and Preaching, ed. Ed Stetzer (Nashville, Tenn.: Lifeway, 2013), 3. 2 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2011), 68. 3 Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2007), 151. 4 87 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson Historical Foundations Before considering the issues surrounding christotelic versus christocentric interpretation, a brief sketch of the historical foundations of christological interpretation of Scripture may prove beneficial. While the OT authors certainly had an eye towards a coming Messiah, the first place to begin is with Jesus’ interpretation. The classic Scripture to consider for Christ’s interpretation of Scripture is Luke 24:13–35. Luke explains that on the road to Emmaus, Jesus began “with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27 NASB). Darrell Bock says, “He went through the entire Scripture, front to back.” 5 Walter Liefeld and David Pao explain the importance of this passage when they write, “They [Verses 25–27] also show that the way the writers of the NT used the OT had its origin not in their own creativity but in the postresurrection teachings of Jesus, of which this passage is a paradigm.”6 Therefore, the origin of christological interpretation is found in the teaching of Jesus Himself. Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 is another example of christological interpretation in the NT. Here Peter references three OT texts: Joel 2:28–32, Ps 16:8–11, and Ps 110:1. John Polhill notes, “Peter’s whole use of the psalms had been to establish the messianic status of Jesus for his Jewish audience.”7 Then Peter climaxes as he proclaims, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). Peter clearly preached Scripture with a christological slant. A third example is Paul’s defense before Agrippa in Acts 26. After a monologue of explanation, Paul crescendos, “So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22–23). Thus, I. Howard Marshall correctly writes, “In a final summary Paul reiterates the content of his message. It was, he claimed, fully in accord with what had been prophesied by Moses and the prophets in the Old Testament, and therefore should have been acceptable to the Jews.”8 Finally, the book of Hebrews serves as a sample of christological preaching. George Guthrie counts “roughly thirty-seven quotations, forty allusions, nineteen cases where OT material is summarized, and thirteen where an OT name or topic is referred to without reference to a specific context.”9 And yet, the focus is not merely on the OT itself. R. T. France admits, “The issue is thus where the religion of the OT now finds its proper continuation, and for those Jews who accept that Jesus is the Messiah to whom the OT pointed forward, the answer is clear.”10 It becomes quite clear that the focus of the book of Hebrews is Jesus Christ. 5 Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1996), 1917. Walter L. Liefeld and David W. Pao, “Luke,” in Luke–Acts (EBC 10; rev. ed.; ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007), 347. 6 7 John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC 26; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 115–116. I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 5; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 418. 8 George Guthrie, “Hebrews” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 919. 9 R. T. France, “Hebrews,” in Hebrews–Revelation (EBC 13; rev. ed.; ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006), 1333. 10 88 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the author of Hebrews all viewed the OT as looking forward to a culmination in Jesus. This serves as the biblical foundation of christological interpretation, one which the church fathers would build upon as well. The years which followed the close of the NT continued the christological hermeneutic of the apostles. The fathers were those who led the church between A.D. 90 and 150. David Dockery notes that a strong christological interpretation of the OT was not as prominent during these early years because their focus tended towards moral and ethical instruction.11 However, by the second and third centuries, the Alexandrian School more than made up for any lack in the fathers. The names of Philo of Alexandria and Origen are virtually synonymous with allegory—a method of interpretation often used to preach Christ where he may not be seen as clearly present. Dockery writes of this time: “Christ was the ultimate climax; because God in his dealings with humankind was leading to this point, it seemed appropriate to find typological pictures or pointers in the experiences and events of the chosen nation.”12 While the focus on Christ was beneficial, the method became excessive in many cases. In response to the extreme allegory of the Alexandrian School, the literal-historical method rose to prominence within the Antiochene School. Their focus was now directed towards the literal interpretation with practically a full-scale rejection of the allegorical method.13 The doctors of the church, Jerome and Augustine, also endorsed a level of christological interpretation. Jerome did not endorse an allegorical method; however, he did interpret the Scriptures with a strong christological focus. Dockery notes that Jerome referred many psalms to Christ and identified the “son of man” in Dan 7 as being Christ. Interestingly, Jerome broke with the pattern of the early church when he did not identify the fourth person in the furnace as Christ in Dan 3.14 Augustine, on the other hand, understood the Bible to be best interpreted both literally and allegorically.15 Augustine is perhaps best remembered for his axiom: “In the Old Testament the New is concealed; in the New, the Old is revealed.”16 Sidney Greidanus points out that especially in Augustine’s work against Faustus, who denied that the OT witnesses to Christ, Augustine quotes the NT repeatedly to show that the OT speaks of Christ.17 The years leading up to the Reformation continued to push for a christological interpretation. And the Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, definitely continued the trend. Dockery writes, “It was Luther’s emphasis on a fuller sense located in the christological meaning of Scripture that linked the Reformers with Jesus, the apostles, and the early church.”18 Kenneth Hagen adds that for Luther, Christ is the center of Scripture, not a doctrine or a principle. As he puts it, Luther maintains that “Christ is the babe in the manger and Scripture is the manger that David S. Dockery, Bible Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992), 48. 11 12 Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 81. 13 Ibid., 103. 14 Ibid., 129–136. 15 Ibid., 146. The origination of this quotation is unclear. It may be a rewording of the statement, “This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament” (Augustine, Spir. et litt. 27). 16 Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 100. 17 18 Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 160. 89 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson supports him.”19 For most of the first half of the church’s history, biblical interpretation leaned away from the historical exegetical method as interpreters struggled with how to understand the OT in light of Jesus. The result was the sometimes strange allegorical or spiritual interpretations. Calvin, however, rode a middle road. David Puckett writes concerning this issue: In his treatment of allegory, tropology and prophecy, [Calvin] adopted a moderate position that he believed avoided the temptations that too often befell Jewish and Christian exegesis. He did not uproot the Old Testament from its historical soil, nor was he content to look only at the roots once the full flowering had taken place in Jesus Christ. He used the New Testament interpretation of the Old to establish the meaning of the Old Testament text.20 Calvin’s method seemed to be an attempt to be faithful to the original author’s intent, as well as proceed to the person of Jesus at the same time. The Battle Between Christocentric vs. Christotelic Building upon a brief excursus of some of the major movements in the early history of christological hermeneutics, it is now time to turn our attention to the two key words being discussed: christocentric and christotelic.21 Christocentric The term christocentric has a broad history that encompasses a variety of styles, approaches, and methods. Sidney Greidanus has become somewhat synonymous with the phrase christocentric. As professor emeritus of preaching at Calvin Theological Seminary, Greidanus has written extensively in the area of “preaching Christ.”22 He has done much to advance the focus on christocentric hermeneutic. In 1999, Greidanus described his christocentric method as falling somewhere between Calvin’s theocentric method and Luther’s christological method. 23 He explains his definition in this way: “The Christocentric method complements the theocentric method of interpreting the Old Testament by seeking to do justice to the fact that God’s story of bringing his kingdom on earth is centered in Christ: Christ the center of redemptive history, Christ 19 Kenneth Hagen, “Martin Luther,” DMBI, 692. 20 David L. Puckett, “John Calvin,” DMBI, 291. Given that these two terms are adjectives describing a particular hermeneutical method, they will both be written in lower case. This follows much the same method as biblical (adjective) as compared to Bible (proper noun). It should be noted that different authors being quoted used a variety of conventions in their own material. 21 See Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the OT; Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Genesis: Foundations for Expository Sermons (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007); Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Ecclesiastes: Foundations for Expository Sermons (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010); and Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel: Foundations for Expository Sermons (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012). 22 23 Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the OT, 227. 90 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 the center of the Scriptures.”24 Greidanus goes on to explain seven different avenues for preaching Christ from the OT: from typology to allusions, to promise-fulfillment and NT references. His work has been important, especially as he seeks to connect expository preaching with christocentric preaching. Another name that resonates with christocentric preaching is Graeme Goldsworthy. Goldsworthy was formerly a lecturer of OT, biblical theology, and hermeneutics at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia. His book Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture is a testimony to his view of christological preaching. Like Greidanus, Goldsworthy offers a reasonable model of christocentric interpretation. However, Goldsworthy is right to note that a christocentric hermeneutic is not the same as christomonism.25 The latter is seen in a more negative light, suggesting a separation of the work of Christ from that of the Father and the Spirit. Thus christomonism is wrong in light of the apostolic hermeneutic of the NT which clearly attests to Christ’s role within the Trinity. For our purposes, christomonism is not being endorsed. Indeed, to preach Christ is to preach the fullness of the Trinity. While christocentric preaching is widely endorsed by many scholars, there are yet some who struggle to endorse the concept completely. Some, like Goldsworthy, worry that the focus may shift away from God to Christ alone. And others, like Grant Osborne, believe the approach has greater dangers than strengths. He suggests that “nearly all practitioners allegorize and spiritualize Old Testament texts to fit preconceived ‘types of Christ’ or some such thing.”26 Similarly, he adds that the history and record of God’s work in the OT is lost in an effort to make the OT relevant. Instead, Osborne endorses a trinitarian focus combined with a promise-fulfillment focus. And yet he sees these two foci coming together “united into a single Bible via the Christ event.”27 But this is not the intent of the christocentric hermeneutic being presented here. Christotelic It is necessary to make a clear distinction between christocentric and christotelic. While the term christocentric has been around now for a number of years, the term christotelic is a relatively new term in the realm of hermeneutics.28 David Prince comments that Peter Enns coined the term christotelic in order to describe the apostolic method which was both christocentric and eschatological.29 Enns explains that this new term offers a more eschatological hermeneutic. He notes that the Greek word τéλος means “end” or “completion.” Thus, to read the OT christotelically 24 Ibid. Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006), 65. 25 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (rev. and exp. ed.; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006), 368. 26 27 Ibid., 369. Peter Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving Beyond a Modern Impasse,” WTJ 65 (2003): 263–87, 277n33. 28 David Edward Prince, “The Necessity of a Christocentric Kingdom-Focused Model of Expository Preaching” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011), 81. Prince cites Enns’ article in WTJ 65, where Enns writes, “The term I prefer to use to describe this hermeneutic is Christotelic.” This article was printed in 2003, which very well may be the earliest appearance of the term in print. 29 91 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson means to read it already knowing that Christ is somehow the end to which the OT is heading.30 As Enns points out, a christotelic view of Scripture is not intended to flatten out the OT. Truly, the goal is to understand the OT on its own terms and yet understand the impact of Christ’s work for both the believers in the first-century and believers today.31 Enns offers a helpful analogy to understanding the relationship of reading the Bible christotelically, especially in relation to the OT. Enns writes: As an analogy, it is helpful to think of the process of reading a good novel the first time and the second time. The two readings are not the same experience. Who of us has not said during that second reading, “I didn’t see that the first time,” or “So that’s how the pieces fit together.” The fact that the OT is not a novel should not diminish the value of the analogy: the first reading of the OT leaves you with hints, suggestions, trajectories, and so on, of how things will play out in the end, but it is not until you get to the end that you begin to see how the pieces fit together. And, in that second reading you also begin to see how parts of the story that seemed wholly unrelated at first now take on a much richer, deeper significance.32 The first reading of the OT, without knowing of Christ, reveals an important story of God and His chosen people, Israel. This story eventually culminates in the long awaited Messiah, Jesus Christ. To read the Bible front-to-back offers a particular interpretation. However, after knowing who Christ is and what Christ has done, Enns’ second reading of the OT creates a very different understanding. And though there are inherent dangers in reading the Bible back-to-front, it seems essential to understanding the OT to see Christ as the completion of the entire story. G. K. Beale acknowledges the struggle between differentiating these two terms: christocentric and christotelic. Beale affirms Enns, but he also believes that Enns goes too far in his suggestions of how the NT uses the OT.33 He notes that some scholars believe that the apostles were overly christocentric, reading Christ into passages that had nothing to do with the coming Messiah. Thus, they have been accused of distorting the meaning. But Beale argues this was a misreading of the text. While it is possible, he suggests that it might not always be so depending on how one defines the terms christocentric and christotelic. In the end, Beale supports a more individualized study of each passage to determine if distortion took place.34 While his purpose is Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005), 154. 30 Enns explains that there is an ecclesiotelic dimension as well. By this, he means that the use of the OT does not focus exclusively on the person of Christ, but also on the body of Christ, the church (ibid.). While Enns argues for the christotelic and ecclesiotelic dimensions to how the apostles interpreted the OT in the NT, he admits that these two ways do not explain everything the NT writers did with the OT (ibid., 155). 31 Peter Enns, “Chapter Three: Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to The New Testament Use of the Old in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Zondervan Counterpoints Collection; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008), 201. 32 G.K. Beale, “Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Revisiting the Debate Seventeen Years Later in the Light of Peter Enns’ Book, Inspiration and Incarnation,” Them 32 (October 2006): 19. 33 G.K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2012), 8. 34 92 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 to show how one should handle the NT’s use of the OT, Beale clearly shows that there is a gap in understanding these two critical terms. Darrell Bock pushes back against Enns’ model of christotelic preaching as well. Bock believes Enns overstates the case, making the OT less important or even unimportant. And Bock adds that much of the OT points as much to what he calls an eschatotelic (focus on the end) reading than it does a christotelic (focus on the Messiah) reading. In Bock’s eyes, the christotelic hermeneutic reduces the importance of the typology found throughout the Bible.35 Bridging the Gap Due to the fact that the term christotelic is so new to the field of hermeneutics, it is informative to note how some scholars have endorsed the term christocentric . . . but with perhaps a more christotelic nature to their understanding. The following comments are not an attempt to put words into the mouths of these scholars. However, given the newness of the concept, it may be instructive to see how their use of christocentric is similar to that of christotelic. Tony Merida is a homiletics professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary as well as the founding pastor of Imago Dei Church in Raleigh, NC. Merida argues for preachers to “make the hero of the Bible (Jesus), the hero of every message.”36 While he continually uses the phrase “Christ-centered” through his book, it appears that he does not intend to find Jesus in every text. In fact, Merida clarifies this by arguing against what he calls “wild allegory” and “silly connections.”37 He goes on to state, “I’m calling for something wider and deeper. I want people to see the unity of the Bible and how it points Jesus [sic], by way of whole Bible context, and theme development, and pattern.”38 It would seem that Merida may be arguing for what will later be described as christotelic preaching more than purely christocentric preaching. David Prince is a recent doctoral graduate from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY in the field of expository preaching. Prince’s dissertation on a christocentric view of expository preaching touches on the heart of the issue. He suggests that one of the purposes of preaching is the eschatological hope. He writes, “The protoevangelium [Gen 3:15] is not only the first gospel; it is the first eschatology. The unfolding of that promise in the biblical narrative means that all of redemptive history generates an eschatological or Christocentric pull. . . . The entire Bible is rightly recognized as Christian Scripture because every part is organically connected to the τéλος of Scripture in the eschatological kingdom of Christ.”39 As Russell Moore contends, “The overarching story—with a beginning, a middle, and an end—makes sense of all of the smaller stories of our individual lives. In Scripture the eschaton is not simply tacked on to the gospel at the end. It is instead the vision toward which all of Scripture is pointing— and the vision that grounds the hope of the gathered church and the individual believer.”40 Notably, Darrell L. Bock, “Response to Enns,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Zondervan Counterpoints Collection; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008), 226. 35 36 Tony Merida, Proclaiming Jesus: Christ-Centered Teaching and Preaching (GCD Books, 2012), 6. 37 Ibid., 10. 38 Ibid. 39 Prince, “The Necessity of a Christocentric Kingdom-Focused Model of Expository Preaching,” 166. Russell D. Moore, “Personal and Cosmic Eschatology,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 2007), 858. 40 93 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson Prince speaks against Enns’ extreme stance of christotelic preaching, yet his definition of christotelic preaching certainly points in a similar direction. It appears that the newness of the term christotelic is part and parcel to the argument. When Bryan Chapell wrote Christ-Centered Preaching in 1994, the term christotelic was not on the radar. He supports the idea that “a preacher needs only to demonstrate where and how a particular functions in the overall redemptive plan in order to show its Christocentric focus.”41 Even Sidney Greidanus, writing in his classic Sola Scriptura in 1970, defines exactly the idea behind christotelic preaching. He rightly suggests: This conception of Christ as the eternal Logos actively at work throughout history removes the props from the traditional insistence that every sermon must somehow point to Christ Incarnate in order to be Christocentric. It bursts the confining mold which has caused so many aberrations throughout the history of preaching; it creates more room for the text to speak. The preacher is no longer required ‘to land with an acrobatic leap at Golgotha’ in order to make the sermon Christocentric, for Christ is already present at that point of redemptive history which the text relates.42 While a simple mention of Christ by name is not considered christocentric or christotelic, neither does the preacher have to reach Bethlehem or Golgotha to be christological. Christotelic preaching occurs when the message clearly reveals Christ’s messianic character, redemptive purposes, and restorative acts. Careful study of the literature supports the idea that the term christotelic may simply be a new term given to an older concept. In 1988, Dan McCartney was arguing for a similar goal of hermeneutics. His thesis is that not only is there a hermeneutical method used in interpretation, but there is also a hermeneutical goal. According to McCartney, the NT writers saw Christ as that goal. And thus he argues, “So we must maintain both of these factors—a compatible world view [method of viewing Scripture] and a correct hermeneutical goal—if we hope to achieve true understanding of Scripture. If we keep one and not the other, we lose our way.”43 This is the goal of the christotelic hermeneutic: recognizing that Jesus is the end, completion, or goal of the biblical story. So perhaps the term is merely a clarification of what scholars have been espousing all along. John R. Wilch uses the term christotelic in his 2006 commentary on Ruth. In explaining the theology behind the book and his intended approach, Wilch explains that Martin Luther held a christocentric view of Scripture. But Wilch goes on to explain that both the apostles and Luther saw that the OT and NT were connected in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He goes on to suggest, “That the entire OT points prophetically toward its fulfillment through Jesus Christ indicates that a refinement of the term ‘Christocentric’ is in order. More exactly for OT exegesis, it is a Christotelic hermeneutic, for it deals with Jesus Christ as the ‘goal’ and ‘fulfillment’ (τéλος, telos) of the OT.”44 Thus, publications after 2005 (when Enns first coined the term) tend to use Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon (2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005), 302. 41 Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts (Toronto: Wedge, 1970), 145. 42 Dan G. McCartney, “The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate (ed. Harvie M. Conn; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book, 1988), 114. 43 44 John R. Wilch, Ruth (ConcC; St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 2006), 61. 94 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 christotelic, while those prior to 2005 use the term christocentric. Obviously not everyone who used christocentric would endorse the term christotelic, but perhaps there would be some overlap. Seeking Resolution One of the greatest struggles of either term is stretching the text to say what it does not intend to say. The unity of the Testaments is critical to both a christocentric and christotelic view of the Bible. Graeme Goldsworthy reiterates that “Jesus and the apostles proclaimed from the Old Testament that Jesus was the Christ.”45 To this he adds, “This relationship of the texts to the person and work of Jesus is central to the unity of the Bible.” Therefore, biblical theology is a helpful corrective to inappropriate attempts at preaching Christ. Goldsworthy rightly attests that one of the “biggest gains in biblical theology lies in the fact that the Christology of the sermon is immeasurably enriched by showing the various dimensions and the variegated textures that are woven into the New Testament understanding of Christ.”46 He then concludes, “When done properly, preaching Christ from every part of the Bible need never degenerate into predictable platitudes about Jesus. The riches in Christ are inexhaustible, and biblical theology is the way to uncover them.”47 Brevard Childs acknowledges the centrality of Jesus Christ to biblical theology. In his magnum opus, Childs writes, “There is widespread agreement among Christian theologians that the centre of Biblical Theology, in some sense, must be christology, the biblical witness to the person and work of Jesus Christ.”48 The issue is not that Christ is the center, but rather what emphasis of Christ is the center. He adds, “Nevertheless, in spite of the centrality of this Christian confession, the nature of this relationship is complex rather than simple, and raises a host of difficult historical, literary, and theological problems which reach to the heart of the biblical theological enterprise.” In the chapter which follows, Childs attempts to develop the issues surrounding the unity and diversity of the Testament’s witness to Christ. His major focus was to approach the Bible with a canonical view that allowed for an emphasis on the coming of Christ. Biblical theologians Beale and Carson offer a helpful illustration to explain how the OT and NT are connected. They compare the relationship to that of a seed: A favorite illustration of some in explaining this phenomenon is the picture of a seed. An apple seed contains everything that will organically grow from it. No examination by the naked eye can distinguish what will grow from the seed, but once the seed has grown into the full apple tree, the eye can then see how the seed has been “fulfilled.” It is something like that with the way OT passages are developed in the NT. There are “organic links” to one degree or another, but those links may not have been clearly discernible to the eye of the OT author or reader. Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), 52. 45 Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 30. 46 47 Ibid. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992), 452. 48 95 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson Accordingly, there is sometimes a creative development or extension of the meaning of the OT text that is still in some way anchored to that text.49 This continuity of the Bible from OT to NT revolves around the central figure of Jesus Christ. He is the One the OT authors longed for, and he is the One who the NT authors wrote about. In short, the Bible is the story of God’s redemption of man through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen have suggested that this biblical story could be divided into a six act play. What God created in Eden fell as the result of Adam’s sin. Thus from Gen 3 on, the remainder of the Bible tells the story of God’s redemption and restoration plan. As the pages of the NT unfurl, the acts of redemption and restoration are accomplished through the substitutional death of Jesus. The Book of Acts describes the early church spreading the news of such redemption. But what about the restoration? Such a restoration is not fully completed until the Revelation unveils the consummation of human history. Bartholomew and Goheen articulate this clearly: When God set out to redeem his creation from sin and sin’s effects on it, his ultimate purpose was that what he had once created good should be utterly restored, that the whole cosmos should once again live and thrive under his beneficent rule. In Jesus Christ that goal of cosmic redemption was first revealed and then accomplished: the words of Jesus from the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30), declare redemption to be complete already, even though it final revelation waits in the future. The Bible tells the story of the progressive march of God toward this final cosmic restoration.50 If the thrust of the Bible is such a march toward this cosmic conclusion, then perhaps a christotelic lens of preaching the Bible is more appropriate. Application of a Christotelic Hermeneutic A method of interpretation is only as helpful as its application. Thus the question is raised: What happens if we attempt to apply a christotelic interpretation to a difficult passage of the Bible? What follows is a cursory attempt at applying a christotelic interpretation to one of the most difficult books in the canon, the Song of Solomon (hereafter, the Song). Before considering a possible christotelic view of the Song, a brief review of the history of interpreting the Song will prove helpful. History of Interpreting the Song The Song has a sordid history of interpretation and even inclusion within the Christian canon. It is considered one of the five Antilegomena books of the OT (along with Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezekiel, 49 Beale and Carson, Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, xxvii. Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004), 207. 50 96 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 and Proverbs) which were initially considered canonical, then disputed but eventually received into the canon.51 Goldsworthy notes that the “only clue to the salvation-history context for this book is its association with Solomon.”52 Indeed, the Song seems to defy the concept that all Scripture testifies to Christ. Most commentators would probably attest to the overarching theme being love, erotic love at that. And while the allegorical interpretations have expanded this idea to God’s love for His people and His church, such interpretations have missed the text’s original concern of human love. Paige Patterson notes that the number of interpretations are “almost as numerous as the volumes written on the subject.”53 He suggests that they fall into seven different categories: allegorical, dramatic, wedding song, liturgical/cultic, secular love song, literal, and literal analogous.54 Allegorical An allegorical interpretation goes back as far as early Jewish commentators, drawn from the Talmud (ca. A.D. 150–500) and the Targum (6th century).55 Duane Garrett notes that both Christians and Jews have allegorized the text.56 He goes on to note that Jews have seen the Song as a history of Israel’s redemption or of the love of wisdom, while Christians have seen it as a portrayal of Christ’s love for the church and/or the believer’s soul. Garrett clarifies the issue with allegory when he writes, “To read a single allegorical interpretation is to be impressed, and to wonder if the author is on to something profound; to read a hundred allegorical interpretations is to be depressed, and to want to discard the whole.”57 In the City of God, Augustine writes of Song 4:12–16, “This account can be even better read as an allegory of the church, prophetical of what was to happen in the future. Thus the garden is the church itself, as we can see from the Canticle of Canticles; the four rivers are the four Gospels; the fruit-bearing trees are the saints, as the fruits are their works; and the tree of life is, of course, the Saint of saints, Christ” (Civ. 13.21). Thus, the allegorical view does not help the interpreter determine the actual meaning since there are countless possibilities available. Dramatic Patterson notes that as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, the Song has been interpreted as a drama.58 The dramatic interpretation either follows a two-character or three-character drama. In Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. and exp. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), 258. 51 52 Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 191. 53 Paige Patterson, Song of Solomon (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17. Ibid., 17–27; Marvin Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7C; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977), 89–229, suggests 16 different interpretive methods in his volume encompassing these and more. 54 55 Patterson, Song of Solomon, 18. 56 Duane Garrett, Song of Songs (WBC 23B; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 61. 57 Ibid., 74. 58 Patterson, Song of Solomon, 19. 97 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson the three-character story, Solomon is seeking a young Israelite girl who is actually in love with a shepherd. In the end, she escapes Solomon and makes her way to her shepherd lover.59 The twocharacter drama eliminates the shepherd lover. Garrett suggests that the problem with the dramatic interpretation is that they “read into the text more information than they actually find.”60 Wedding Song Some have used the Song extensively in Jewish nuptial celebrations resulting in it being considered a series of descriptive poems designed for the bride to sing to her lover.61 This view is based on the idea that a series of songs were performed over the course of a wedding celebration. In the celebration, the bride and groom would take on the roles of queen and king as they performed a series of songs and dances. However, Garrett notes that the presence of such actual songs is very few in ancient Israel.62 Liturgical/Cultic More recent liberal scholarship has suggested that the Song is a surviving form of ancient cultic celebration rituals. Patterson writes, “For these interpreters the Song of Solomon is not really a word from God but a fascinating story of evolving history and developing religion.”63 The cultic view is based on a concept of the fertility cults. Here, a central god dies but is raised back through the intercession of his goddess-consort.64 However, the Song does not contain any real evidence of such a fertility story Secular Love Song Still others believe the Song is just that, a secular love song. According to Patterson, those who espouse such a view believe it was only canonized because of its association with Solomon.65 On the surface, the Song appears to be poems or love songs. However, as Garrett notes, this fact does not advance any particular interpretation as no dominant theme is declared, no unity is suggested, and no meaningful theology is possible.66 But since poetry could be based on the real life events of the poet, on the events of another person’s life, or on the figments of the poet’s imagination, there is no way to determine what led to the original writing. 59 Garrett, Song of Songs, 77. 60 Ibid., 80. 61 Patterson, Song of Solomon, 20. 62 Garrett, Song of Songs, 83. 63 Patterson, Song of Solomon, 20. 64 Garrett, Song of Songs, 82. 65 Patterson, Song of Solomon, 20. 66 Garrett, Song of Songs, 90. 98 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 Literal This approach views the Song as a demonstration of a godly approach to sexual and marital concerns, as presented at face value of the book itself.67 Tremper Longman suggests that the literal interpretation avoids searching out a code that the words may imply.68 In his estimation, this does not flatten out the reading of the text, but rather it allows the natural reading of the poetry. Theodore of Mopsuestia (A.D. 350–428) believed the Song to be nothing more than a love poem between Solomon and the Egyptian princess he married. Longman notes that John Calvin believed the text to be about physical love as well.69 In time, the more literal approach overcame the allegorical interpretations. Literal Analogous This view sees the literal interpretation as appropriate, but it also recognizes that the Bible uses similar imagery to create an analogy that describes God’s relationship with Israel. The OT pictures Israel as the wife of Yahweh. Israel’s unfaithfulness to God is compared to the broken relationship between Hosea and Gomer. Patterson adds, “Again, the church is presented in the New Testament as the bride of Christ eagerly awaiting the coming of her bridegroom. Even though the New Testament imagery shifts away from strictly conjugal relationships, the domestic analogy is perpetuated in the concept that believers are the children of God the Father and brothers and sisters in Christ.”70 While this may at first glance sound like allegory, allegory attempts to press an image into the details for unique meanings. This is not the focus here. Rather, the literal analogous approach suggests a picture (an analogy) that was likely not present in the original author’s mind but was present in the Holy Spirit’s mind. Patterson says it most succinctly: “But in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit the Song not only demonstrates God’s blessings on monogamous love, including its most intimate expressions, but also suggests the greater spiritual intimacies and devotion that exist between Yahweh and Israel, and Christ and His Church.”71 Christotelic Interpretation of the Song Perhaps a christotelic interpretation of the Song would prove more useful and faithful to not only the original author’s intended meaning but also to the goal of redemptive history. Remembering that christotelic interpretation views a text in light of Christ being the end or completion, what follows is an attempt at adding the christotelic lens to the literal analogous interpretive method 67 Patterson, Song of Solomon, 21. 68 Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 38. 69 Ibid., 39. 70 Patterson, Song of Solomon, 21. 71 Ibid., 22. 99 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson above. While he does not use the term itself, Christopher Mitchell offers an interpretation that falls very much in line with what has been discussed above as christotelic hermeneutics.72 At the literal level, the Song includes an ample amount of marriage imagery. Mitchell notes that both the OT and NT includes marriage, or as he calls it, “nuptial” language. 73 While space does not allow an extensive study of marriage imagery, an excursus will be offered. The beauty of the marriage relationship was forged in the Garden of Eden (Gen 1–2). However, following the fall in Gen 3, God extended the great promise of the restoration of mankind in Gen 3:15. What was lost in Gen 3 will be regained in the fullness of the restoration of God’s people. Mitchell writes, “The original creation serves as a pattern and as a reminder of the restoration that is to come.”74 The marriage motif continues with the Mosaic covenant in Exodus. The Ten Commandments begin with the command to love no other gods (Exod 20:3) and ends with the command to not love your neighbor’s wife (Exod 20:17). Mitchell reminds us that God is a jealous God who “will punish infidelity much like a jealous husband (e.g., Exod 20:5; 34:14–15; Num 25:11–13; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15).”75 And yet God promises restoration of this broken relationship later in the Prophets (Hosea in particular). The story of Hosea and Gomer pictures two real people having a real marriage, yet a marriage that portrays the theological relationship that God explains to be between Him and Israel. While literal pictures are present, there are also metaphorical pictures such as that of Isa 54:4–6. Mitchell writes, “In this way Isaiah prepares for the predominant eschatological use of nuptial imagery in the NT, where God’s people are not so much his present wife but his bride waiting for the future wedding and consummation.”76 An interesting connection exists between the Song and Ps 45. This royal wedding psalm contains several similarities to the Song. In the Psalm, the king is none less than Yahweh himself. Mitchell recognizes that the faithful king of Ps 45 “dramatizes Yahweh’s love for Israel and prefigures Christ’s love for his church.”77 This leads the author of Heb 1 to quote Ps 45 and ascribe it to Jesus as well. The result is a closely related messianic theme of the bridegroom’s reign. Thus, Mitchell concludes, “The quotation of Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1, with its direct application to Jesus Christ and his royal reign in righteousness for the benefit of his people, supports a Christological and ecclesiological reading of the Song.”78 By the opening of the NT, the nuptial imagery adjusts somewhat, but it is still very much present. The shift is away from the portrait of being Yahweh’s wife and already married to a more strongly eschatological orientation. Thus the NT pictures the church as a virgin bride longing for the consummation. The first coming of Christ initiated the betrothal period and thus the time of feasting as pictured in Matt 9:14–15; Mark 2:18–20; John 2:1–11. And yet to be present at the banquet table, the church must wait until Christ’s return for his bride. This wedding of the Lamb Christopher W. Mitchell, The Song of Songs (ConcC; St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 2003), 29–66. It should be noted that Peter Enns did not coin the term christotelic until 2005. In the Concordia Commentary on Ruth (2006), John Wilch uses the term. Had Mitchell endorsed the term, it was not yet available to him in 2003 when he wrote his commentary. 72 73 Ibid., 40. 74 Ibid., 41. 75 Ibid., 43. 76 Mitchell, Song of Songs, 48. 77 Ibid., 50. 78 Ibid., 50. 100 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 is pictured clearly in Rev 21:9. One of the rich marriage texts of the NT epistles is Eph 5 as Paul compares marriage to that of Christ and the church, the great mystery (Eph 5:25). In an epistle that is very much about the church, Paul connects the Christology of the text to a marriage theme. Could this be more than a simple comparison? Rather could it be a clarification of what the Bible intends for the Song to be understood as—the mystery? So then, perhaps the message of the Song is a picture of the longing, waiting, and eventual consummating of God and his bride, the church. And the only way that will happen is because of what Christ did at Calvary and the pending restoration upon his return. So not only is the Song a picture of married love and all that God intends it to be, but it is also a picture of the marriage feast. Song 4 pictures the wedding night between Solomon and his bride. This is the joyous night that they have anticipated. And yet the final consummation of the age is also the joyous night that believers have anticipated and longed for, a day of final restoration of what was lost in Gen 3. No, Jesus is not hiding in the background of the verses in the Song. But yes, he is the τéλος of the book. The only possible way to arrive at that marriage consummation celebration is through the redemptive work of Christ at the cross. This, then, offers a more christotelic interpretation of the Song. And it seems to be more faithful to the grand narrative of the Bible than the numerous other interpretative attempts. Conclusion While there is yet more to be said and to be studied in the area of christotelic hermeneutics, it does appear to offer a more consistent understanding of the whole of Christian Scripture as compared to a christocentric view. While there are oppositions and extremes in both cases, there is a plausible way forward. The following four suggestions offer the beginning steps in choosing the right lens for christological preaching. First, strive to discover how the text points towards Christ, his work, and his ultimate fulfillment, instead of simply forcing Christ into every text. Daniel Block correctly suggests: On the surface it may appear spiritually edifying, but it is exegetically fraudulent to try to extract from every biblical text some truth about Christ. The Scriptures consist of many different genres and address many different concerns. Not all speak of Christ. We would improve our hermeneutic if we interpreted the Old Testament Christotelically rather than Christocentrically. While it is hermeneutically irresponsible to say that all Old Testament texts have a Christocentric meaning or point to Christ, it is true that all play a significant role in God’s great redemptive plan that leads to and climaxes in Christ. This means that as a Christian interpreter my wrestling with an Old Testament text must begin with trying to grasp the sense the original readers/hearers should have got, and authoritative preaching of that text depends upon having grasped that intended sense first.79 Discovering how the text points to the fullness and completion in Christ is critical. Unfortunately, Daniel Block, “Daniel Block on Christ-Centered Hermeneutics,” in Christ-Centered Teaching and Preaching (ed. Ed Stetzer; Nashville, Tenn.: Lifeway, 2013), 6. 79 101 Choosing the Right Lens | Christopher Dickerson too many people have forced Christ into a nail, a ribbon, or a boat. Instead of straining to make Christ fit into the text, seek to find out how the text points ultimately to Christ. Second, strive to be open to the possibility that each genre and passage may require a different hermeneutical key. Over the years, there have been some scholars who appeared to claim their method was the only way. While that method likely worked for a given passage, it may not be true for all others. Obviously interpreting the Proverbs is vastly different than Genesis. Christocentric preaching works for certain passages. Christotelic preaching works for other passages. Combined, they create a strong hermeneutical process for preaching Christ in all Christian Scripture. David Murray acknowledges this fact when he writes, “I increasingly saw the vital necessity of flexibility in interpreting each Old Testament genre and passage, the need to have a variety of interpretive keys at my disposal if I was to accurately unlock the Christ-centered message that God had packed into that book or passage.”80 Consider developing a paradigm that aids you in choosing the appropriate interpretive key given the genre and text. Third, strive to locate the passage within its redemptive historical context. Not only do texts differ in their genre, they also differ in their location within redemptive history. Bryan Chapell encourages interpreters to ask “where and how does this text function in the unfolding revelation of God’s redemptive nature and plan.”81 He adds: That plan was announced at the dawn of human history (Genesis 3:15), as God promised to provide a divine way out of the human dilemma created by the fall. All human history and biblical commentary unfolding beyond that point must be interpreted in the light of this promised provision of heavenly origin (as the Savior and Scripture teach us to do; e.g. Matthew 17:1-5; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 10:43; Romans 3:21-22).82 The location of the text within history will help determine the hermeneutical key to use. Finally, strive to choose the correct reading glasses for interpreting the text. After selecting the text, the interpreter must pepper the text with two important questions. Chapell identifies these questions as: (1) What does this text reflect about the nature of God who provides redemption, and (2) What does this text reflect about the nature of humanity that requires redemption?83 He suggests that these questions become the lenses of reading glasses by which the interpreter determines what the Bible is saying about God or human nature. He writes, “Such reading glasses always make us aware of our need of God’s grace to compensate for our sin and inability. Christ may not be specifically mentioned in the text, but the reflection of God’s nature and ours makes the necessity of the proclamation of His grace apparent.”84 Choosing to look at the text through a christocentric lens may put the original context in jeopardy as the interpreter tries at all costs to find Jesus in the text. However, choosing to look at the text through a christotelic lens allows the interpreter to determine how this text fits into the overall context of the biblical drama which culminates in Jesus 80 David Murray, “David Murray on Christ-Centered Hermeneutics,” in Christ-Centered Teaching and Preaching (ed. Ed Stetzer; Nashville, Tenn.: Lifeway, 2013), 10. 81 Bryan Chapell, “Bryan Chapell on Christ-Centered Hermeneutics,” in Christ-Centered Teaching and Preaching (ed. Ed Stetzer; Nashville, Tenn.: Lifeway, 2013), 19. 82 Chapell, “Christ-Centered Hermeneutics,” 19. 83 Ibid., 20. 84 Ibid. 102 Inservimus 1.1 (2015): 86–103 and his work of redemption and restoration. This seems to be a more honest approach to interpreting the Bible within both its authorial-intended meaning as well as its redemptivehistorical context. 103