A blog by Adam W. Christman

Category: New Testament

  • Christian Games Done Right: That Dragon, Cancer

    Good review here on ‘That Dragon, Cancer,’ the game I routinely return to in my own thoughts. I’m still processing it.

    Nelson's avatarVideo Games and the Bible

    'Drowning' Image from That Dragon Cancer Official Site A screenshot of That Dragon, Cancer

    *Sources of screenshots are listed in their respective file names.

    __________________________________________

    That Dragon, Cancer* (TDC) gameplay footage and discussion from the Video Games and the Bible YouTube channel:

    That Dragon, Cancer was created by predominantly Christian-staffed independent studio Numinous Games. Among these developers are the Green family, whose story and struggles are captured by the game.

    ——————

    That Dragon, Cancer is the heartwrenching true story of the Green family’s now-deceased infant son, Joel, and his five year battle with cancer. TDC‘s unusual subject matter, combined with a use of gorgeous, surreal vignettes to tell its tale, attracted attention from sources both Christian and secular.

    I don’t want to talk about that.

    Instead, I want to tackle how I feel this title has been tragically misrepresented by the games media. And as a result, those who might have benefited most from…

    View original post 522 more words

  • Book Review: We Cannot Be Silent by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

    Due to release on October 27th, Al Mohler’s We Cannot Be Silent is a helpful introduction for modern evangelical thought on the current events involving the redefinition of sexuality, marriage, etc.

    At 180 pages in length, it is a suitably brief introduction that should lead hungry thinkers towards yet more reading on various sides of the issues addressed in its pages. It includes nine essay chapters and one Q & A chapter at the end.

    The first chapter introduces the issues to be addressed, as already mentioned above. The second chapter, however, is where Mohler’s book begins to be especially helpful. It takes a hard look at the history of redefining sex and marriage with an examination of general (i.e., culture-wide) failures on the part of Christians to continuously promote a healthy view of marriage. This is most clearly seen in the “progress” of divorce laws and contraception. Again, this chapter is a history, so Mohler points to the trail of thought leading from the expansion of divorce to contraception to abortion. It is not always a direct line, but it is connected, nevertheless. Chapters three and four continue in historical work, looking at the history of the homosexual movement. Of particular interest is Mohler’s highlighting of a book by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen titled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s (published 1989). This monograph was written by a psychologist and an advertising specialist to “propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice” (quote from the book’s synopsis on Amazon.com). Among the book’s many suggestions, its most callous is probably this one, “As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care.”[1] This is not to say that homosexual individuals have not been victims of violence or other crimes; and the author doesn’t do that in this book. Rather, it is to point out a stark example of an actual plan put together and then followed that produced the change in which we now live. For years, comedians and others in the media have laughed at the idea of a “gay agenda,” ridiculing the idea as absurdist right-wing paranoia. This point is not to say that all homosexual individuals, their allies, and others are “in on it.” Your average homosexual man or woman is simply trying to live his or her life. Instead, Mohler highlights it in his book, and I bring it up now, to help raise awareness that there actually was and is what one might call a “gay agenda.” It was put together by a psychologist and an expert in advertising who knew how to sell it effectively. Mohler points out not only that this plan was essentially followed to the letter, but that it would (and did) eventually succeed. Chapter four does continue the historical section of the book, but it deals more specifically with the history of marriage as a topic within the homosexual movement and the feminist movement with a parallel look at evangelicals at that time in the 20th century, who began responding to the homosexual movement based on the philosophy of Natural Law.

    The fifth chapter brings the reader into the present day. He discusses the state of the transgender side of the sexual revolution, introducing issues he more fully addresses later in chapter 8, as well as a history of and suggestions for Christian responses to the transgender revolution. Chapter six continues a discussion of present day issues with “The End of Marriage.” He points frequently to the marginalization and eclipse of marriage in the modern age. Marriage, to Mohler and really to many, many others, is “the most central institution of human civilization and human flourishing.”[2] He asserts, “Modernity erases kinship structures, redefines community, establishes the individual as the most important unit of meaning, and sets loose a massive set of social changes that tend to pull the family apart rather than to hold it together.”[3] Some might want to object and say, “But, Adam, hasn’t postmodernity taken over?” I would say that 2015 is currently still centered in modernist thinking. Postmodernity is, if anything, on the way out. Postcolonialism is really the burgeoning philosophical movement of the current generation. Postmodernity has been found wanting by millennials for its emptiness. In postcolonialism, millennials have found a place for morality in an anti-institutional age. Coming back to Mohler’s book, his concern about “The End of Marriage” is that the valuation of having sex without children and children without sex has moved marriage from a covenant to merely a contract, that this could very well lead us to social disaster, and that it has led our society to the subversion of marriage.

    As much as I appreciated the historical overview of the earlier chapters, it is the final four that constitute the meat of the book (and will attract the most attention from reviewers and readers). Chapter seven is a clean look at what the Bible has to say about sex. What I mean by that is there are no frills to this chapter. He examines the biblical texts relevant to the topic, as well as the observations of those texts by those inside and those outside the sexual revolution. The eighth chapter will probably draw significant attention from many acquaintances of mine, as it deals with the intersection of the sexual revolution and religious liberty. It is an important chapter, and one that I think would benefit any reader who want to think about this subject. It concludes with a long quote from Jonathan Rauch, an advocate of gay marriage, that I think is worth your time. The ninth chapter is the final essay of the book, titled “The Compassion of Truth: The Church and the Challenge of the Sexual Revolution.” This chapter could be called Mohler’s systematic theology of sexuality, but it is also more than that. It is a call for truth-telling, illuminated especially by a reflection on Romans 7.

    “‘It [the law] killed me,’ Paul testified (Rom. 7:11), and yet he insisted that the law is good precisely because it informed him of his need for repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”[4]

    In addition, he calls out various failures of the Christian church as it has dealt with the sexual revolution. He devotes only one page to decrying moralism, for example, but that page is dense with meaning. He also shows the failure of considering Christians morally superior, the carelessness with which the church has spoken to and treated homosexuals and others, the isolation of Christians from gays, lesbians, and transgendered person (and along with it the withholding of the gospel), and shallow youth discipleship in the churches of the last century. He calls us to do better; to love our neighbors in sharing life and the gospel with them, no matter what the sin involved is.

    The final chapter is a list of Q & A items commonly discussed today. For example, he addresses, “Aren’t Christians being selective with Old Testament law when they appeal to it with respect to homosexuality, while ignoring Old Testament commands about clothing, food, etc.?” and “What is a theologically faithful definition of sexual orientation? Does sexual orientation affect one’s sexual identity?” and “Should the government play any role in legislating marriage?” Mohler has already taken flack for his answer to the question, “Should a Christian attend a same-sex wedding ceremony?” I think his answers are helpful. And while his answers are necessarily brief for the aim of his book, a few of them are, perhaps, overly brief, even to the detriment of the reader.

    Overall, I recommend We Cannot Be Silent as a helpful introduction for anyone interested in Christian thought on the subject of the sexual revolution. It delivers important history, biblical analysis, and thoughtful suggestions for how to proceed in light of all that has happened. If you pick it up, I suggest you follow his endnotes to the books and articles he cites throughout. He references thinkers and historians on both sides of the issue, and those works will also prove helpful.

    [1] Marshall Kirck and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s (New York: Doubleday, 1989), xxvii.

    [2] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking truth to a culture redefining sex, marriage, & the very meaning of right & wrong (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2015), 85.

    [3] Ibid., 86.

    [4] Ibid., 141.

  • Book Review: An Intepretive Lexicon of NT Greek

    Beale, G. K., Daniel J. Brendsel, and William A. Ross. An Interpretive Lexicon of New Testament Greek: Analysis of Prepositions, Adverbs, Particles, Relative Pronouns, and Conjunctions (Grand Rapids, 2014), 96 pp.

    Many Koine Greek lexicons and grammars have been written over the years. Walter Bauer, et al, produced a thorough and landmark lexicon, which was updated to the third edition fifteen years ago. In 1988, Nida and Louw also produced a lexicon, though theirs was not so much a thorough compilation of options as it was an exploration of each word’s semantic range. A good number of other lexicons and grammars have taken unique angles at the study of Koine. In a recent softcover lexicon, three Greek scholars give the world a helpful aid for some of the smallest pieces of the language.

    This Interpretive Lexicon by Beale, Brendsel, and Ross succeeds as an aid for discerning logical relationships between propositions for the purpose of better exegesis.[1] The subtitle unsubtly lists the subjects of this lexicon. Prepositions, adverbs, particles, relative pronouns, and conjunctions are organized and examined through the authors’ lens.

    On page 18, the authors assert, “[i]t is only an attempt to categorize the relationships ordinarily represented by a given word when such a word appears in the text.” At only 96 pages, the Interpretive Lexicon is hardly exhaustive, but that is just the point. This book is a lexical aid for those who study Koine Greek. It is keyed to both the 2nd and 3rd editions of BAGD/BDAG, Dan Wallace’s grammar, and Murray J. Harris’ Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Beale and his fellows have both interpreted and built upon these other works in order to present a synthesized aid for studying some of the trickiest pieces of Koine. While the authors relied on these other texts for much of their content, Beale and his team interpreted their findings and synthesized them in one book. Beale, et al, even suggest that the reader regularly refer to BAGD/BDAG, for example, in order to fully understanding a word’s options.[2]

    One of the highlights of the Interpretive Lexicon is its utility. It makes a clear distinction between references to the 1979 BAGD edition separately from the 2000 BDAG edition of the same lexicon. It also makes clear references to terms and ideas from Wallace’s and Harris’ works. Without these, the Interpretive Lexicon would be far less useful.

    But the Interpretive Lexicon’s most significant contribution is its system of grammatical labels. The Introduction provides their table of labels, breaking down categories of labels, subcategories, and so on. The specific labels also have parenthetical page number references to chapter 8 of yet another monograph on Koine Greek, Semantic Structure by Beekman, Callow, and Kopesec. In addition, Thomas R. Schreiner’s Interpreting the Pauline Epistles is frequently reference in support of their category labels and description choices in the footnotes. The convergence of so much excellent thinking on Koine Greek has produced a relatively concise, helpful table from which Beale, et al, draws their labels for the various uses of the examined prepositions, etc.

    Here is the first entry from the table, located under the “Coordinate Relationships” section. It is an item labeled “Alternative,” abbreviated as “Alt.” It is defined as “The relationship between propositions representing two or more differing possibilities or choices arising from a situation (83).” Finally, the example is given, “E.g., ‘I can watch a movie or I can play golf.’”

    These abbreviated forms of the labels are used throughout the lexicon proper to identify the various use or uses of each entry. In addition, the references to Wallace and Harris make this an excellent starting point when working with a passage that uses any of the terms included in this lexicon.

    By way of comparison, it reminds me somewhat of Bruce Metzger’s Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek. What Metzger did for relating Greek words to their roots and suffixes and so on, Beale, et al, do for words and particles that relate one proposition to another. Perhaps the Interpretive Lexicon’s closest analogue is Douglas S. Huffman’s 2012 Handy Guide to New Testament Greek: Grammar, Syntax, and Diagramming. Huffman’s book is a 106-page attempt at introducing the reader to every kind of item encountered in Koine Greek, and it is a fine introduction to the language. The Interpretive Lexicon, by contrast, has a narrower focus, and so is free to delve deeper into its subject matter.

    In all, An Interpretive Lexicon of New Testament Greek is an excellent softcover lexical aid for students of Koine Greek. I would probably use this with students who have already completed their introductory Greek course(s) as a supplement to Wallace as my main textbook.

    Link to Amazon.

    Link to Half.com. (The cheapest option at the writing of this review at $8.01.)

    Link to Barnes & Noble.

    [1] p. 6.

    [2] p. 20, for one example.

  • Melchizedek and Christ in Hebrews 7: Part 4

    Part 4?! “Hasn’t this gone on a little long, Adam?” you might ask. Maybe.

    If you’re just discovering this series of posts, part 1 is a survey of ancient literature where Melchizedek is discussed or is a character in both Jewish and Christian sources.

    Part 2 is the presentation of a series of contemporary scholars and their perspectives on the comparison of Melchizedek and Christ. This presentation is thorough, but not exhaustive.

    Part 3 is a brief post that discusses Melchizedek’s two Old Testament appearances, and the context surrounding Hebrews 7 as it relates to to the comparison of Melchizedek and Christ.

    This, the fourth and final post in this series on Melchizedek and Christ, looks at the comparison itself as it occurs in Hebrews 7. The primary focus is the heart of the comparison in 7:1-3, followed by an overview of 7:4-28 as it relates to and clarifies the comparison of vv. 1-3.

    Hebrews 7:1-3

    These verses introduce the midrash on the passage from Gen. 14 without delay. The author gives the historical context of Melchizedek’s meeting with Abraham in v. 1b, which includes the mention of Melchizedek’s blessing on Abraham. Aside from his name and station(s), Melchizedek’s blessing is the first mention of his actions as a righteous man in this passage. Melchizedek is identified as both the “king of Salem” and “priest of the Most High God” (ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου). Verse 2a presents Melchizedek’s status as greater than Abraham by way of narrative recounting: Abraham gave a tithe of his spoils to Melchizedek.

    The lofty descriptions of Melchizedek begin in verse 2b. The author of Hebrews begins these lofty descriptions with the etymology of his name, presenting Melchizedek as the “king of righteousness.” He then follows Philo by interpreting his station as king of Salem with the phrase “king of peace.” These are, by no means, common descriptions of human beings in the Christian Bible. The author here sets the audience up for a high view of this enigmatic figure. In addition, it is the author’s reminder that the offices of God’s Son, his chosen king, and high priest have all converged in the Christ.[1]

    Hebrews 7:3 is the central piece of this laudatory puzzle. It begins with three adjectives, all modified by the negating ἀ prefix. These adjectives describe the king-priest Melchizedek as “without father, without mother, without genealogy” (ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος). As discussed by many scholars, including a large number of those surveyed above, these adjectives are included by the author of Hebrews because of the omission of these details from Gen. 14. Melchizedek suddenly appears in the Abrahamic narrative, and is gone again just as quick. As mentioned above, this is not to say that the author of Hebrews necessarily thought of Melchizedek as some kind of heavenly being. Rather, it is simply a rabbinic method of interpretation that allows him to make these claims in light of the Melchizedek/Christ typology.

    Likewise, Melchizedek is said to have “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων). He is said to continue as a “priest forever.” Again, the Genesis narrative does not include a genealogy, nor does it include a birth narrative or death narrative for Melchizedek. Melchizedek functions within the Genesis narrative as another figure who worships the same God as Abraham, but he also functions within the larger biblical narrative as a shadow of the Christ to come. This description, and those that came before, only become coherent when understood as typology.

    It is precisely because of the typology between Melchizedek (type) and Christ (antitype) that the author of Hebrews can make these lofty claims about Melchizedek. The type of Christ is always a shadow, a form, a signpost pointing forward to that which is true. Thus, if it looks like Melchizedek is without father, or if it looks like he has no end, then how much more is Christ lacking an earthly father and enjoying a life of eternity? The author of Hebrews, himself, tells the audience that Melchizedek ‘resembles’ (ἀφωμοιωμένος) the Son of God. With the simple definition of typology given previously, this resemblance naturally falls into that category.

    Hebrews 7:4-28

    The first three verses of Heb. 7 are the core of the doctrinal teaching that follows in the rest of the chapter. What the reader finds in 7:4-10 is the first unspooling of the propositions found in 7:1-3. This second part of the 7:1-10 unit is a discussion on the significance of this priest. Specifically, the author of Hebrews demonstrates the primacy of the Melchizedekian priesthood as illustrated in the historical tithe from Abraham to Melchizedek.[2] The author of Hebrews and the apostle Paul overlap in a method of critique here. The author of Hebrews demonstrates Levi’s subordination to Melchizedek because he was “in the loins of his ancestor” (v.10) at the time. Paul uses the same logic in Romans 5 regarding the sin of all mankind in Adam’s loins.

    The rest of chapter seven continues to examine the implications of the Melchizedek/Christ typology by an exegesis of Ps. 110:4. Kistemaker details a structure divided among words from that statement, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”[3] Heb. 7:11-13 look at the word “[priestly] order” by comparing the two orders of Levi and Melchizedek. Verses 13-14 look at the word “you” in more discussion on the Messiah who fulfills this typology. Verses 15-25 discuss the term “forever.” Jesus is demonstrated as the one who is the superior high priest whose holds an unending term of service.

    So What is the Point?

    Christians have mulled the question of Melchizedek’s function in Heb. 7 for millennia. By rabbinic and Hellenistic rhetorical devices, the author of Hebrews demonstrates to his audience that Melchizedek functions as a foreshadow of Jesus Christ. The author of Hebrews argues for the superior priesthood of Christ in the longest doctrinal section of the epistle, Heb. 7:1-10:25. Heb. 7:1-3 and Melchizedek form one key to understanding his argument. Ps. 110 opened a door through which this once-enigmatic figure from Gen. 14 became important for defining the kind of priesthood the Christ embodies and fulfills. This Gentile priest outside of the line of Abraham, in his small way, embodied qualities of the Messiah. “So what is said about Melchizedek himself in Heb. 7 need not be taken too seriously as a statement about the historical figure in Genesis. Its point is its application to Jesus.”[4]

     

    [1] See the Surrounding Context post, n. 5.

    [2] cf. Kistemaker, Exposition, 186f, and Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 118f.

    [3] Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 118; cf. Guthrie, Structure of Hebrews, 125-26.

    [4] Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, eds. Richard Bauckham, et al (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 28.

  • Melchizedek and Christ in Hebrews 7: Part 3

    One must understand Melchizedek in the Old Testament before one can understand him in the New Testament. This week’s brief post looks at Melchizedek’s two OT appearances, then treats the context surrounding the Melchizedek/Christ comparison in Hebrews 7.

    For part 1, looking at the history of interpretation regarding Melchizedek, especially in Gen. 14, click HERE.

    For part 2, surveying a variety of contemporary scholars’ opinions on how to understand the Melchizedek/Christ comparison in Hebrews 7, click HERE.

    MELCHIZEDEK IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

     There are two passages in the OT where Melchizedek’s name arises. As a result, it is natural to employ the rabbis’ midrashic instrument of gezera shawa (or verbal analogy), to understanding each passage in light of the other.

    In Genesis 14:18-20, Melchizedek makes his first appearance in the biblical text and only appearance in a narrative. Abraham meets Melchizedek, the king of Salem who is otherwise not introduced by genealogy or any other device. Melchizedek, as a priest of the Most High God (אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן), blesses Abraham, who gives a tithe of his recently-won spoils to the king of Salem. This encounter is contrasted in Genesis with surrounding encounters between Abraham and the king of Sodom, from whom Abraham refuses to receive any kind of gift or tribute.

    Ps. 110:4 is the second passage where Melchizedek is named in the OT. Ps. 110’s importance to the author of Hebrews’ epistle cannot be understated.[1] In this Davidic Psalm, YHWH is speaking to “my Lord” when he declares in verse 4, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” David M. Hay affirms, “It is reasonable to assume that prior Jewish messianic interpretation of the psalm was a factor behind its popularity among Christians.”[2] Ps. 110:4 is the key that links the enigmatic OT figure to the coming Messiah. This link stands already in the OT, so the author of Hebrews picks up this text and the Gen. 14 passage and interprets them as any Jewish rabbi converted to Christianity would, via gezera shawa.

    This discussion lies in the background of the author of Hebrews’ thinking. One must now turn to the primary work at hand, the epistle to the Hebrews. An overview of the relevant elements of Hebrews’ structure is presented before a treatment of the context surrounding Heb. 7.

     

    CONTEXT OF HEBREWS 7

     It is helpful to know the lay of the land before hiking across any distance, whether it is across a town filled with street signs or a natural landscape populated by forests, streams, and hills. This section of the paper provides a general overview of the structure of Hebrews, based on the work of George Guthrie, highlighting the most relevant elements of that structure to the subject of this paper. Following that overview, a brief discussion of the immediate, surrounding context of Heb. 7 provides more illumination.

    The Structure of Hebrews

    The epistle to the Hebrews has essentially two major parts, 1) a discussion on the position of the Son in relation to the angels (1:5-2:18), and 2) a discussion on the position of the Son in relation to the earthly sacrificial system (4:14-10:25). The epistle has a short introduction (1:1-4), as well as an ethical section near the end (10:19-13:19), prior to the benediction (13:20-21) and conclusion (13:22-25). The primary text of this study is Heb. 7:1-3. It is an admittedly small unit within the discussion on the “order of Melchizedek” quote from Ps. 110:4 conducted in 7:1-10, which is, itself, a subsection on the larger discussion on the appointment of the Son as a superior high priest in 5:1-7:28.[3]

    Surrounding Context

    The preceding context of Heb. 7:1-3 begins at 5:1, when the author reminds the audience that the high priest is selected “to act on behalf of men in relation to God…” In his discussion of the Christ’s position as high priest, he quotes from Ps. 2:7 (“You are my Son…”) and Ps. 110:4. This is the author of Hebrews’ first use of the name “Melchizedek” in the epistle, and, by citing Ps. 2:7, it is where the author ties the Son with the offices of king and high priest all together[4]. Heb. 5:7-9 go on to describe Jesus’ submission and obedience and suffering before verse 10 declares, “[Jesus was] designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” This section of the epistle, 5:1-7:28, defines the appointment of the Son as a superior high priest. The author of Hebrews does so, in part, by introducing the Messiah by way of this “Melchizedek.”

    Heb. 5:11-6:12 is a digression from the main thrust of the overall section. The author addresses the issue of his audience’s immaturity and, thus, their ability to receive this advanced teaching. At 6:13, the author begins to transition back to the main teaching of this section when he brings up the promise to Abraham. It is at 6:20 that the author reminds the audience that Jesus s a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. This is what leads up to the text at hand.

    The subject of the midrash of Heb. 7:1-10 is debated, as mentioned above.[5] In 7:11-28, however, Ps. 110:4 becomes the clear subject of at least that midrash. This section contrasts the Levitical line and Melchizedekian order even further, extrapolating from 7:1-10. Chapter seven of Hebrews is the beginning of the longest uninterrupted doctrinal section of the epistle.[6] The nature of the Melchizedek/Christ typology taught in chapter seven is vitally important to the overall teaching on the priesthood of Christ found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

    ***

    To complete our journey, click HERE for part 4.

     

    [1] See esp. David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, vol. 18, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, eds. Robert A. Kraft and Leander Keck, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989.

    [2] Hay, 159. For a full discussion of Psalm 110’s treatment in Judaism leading up to Christianity, see David M. Hay’s book, referenced above.

    [3] Discussion on the structure of Hebrews is largely drawn from George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, Biblical Studies Library, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, and the course handout, “The Structure of the Book of Hebrews.”

    [4] Simon Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 116f.

    [5] See the post on Contemporary Scholarship, also Guthrie, Structure of Hebrews, 125; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “‘Now This Melchizedek’ (Heb 7:1),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 306.

    [6] David L. Allen, 407.

  • Melchizedek and Christ in Hebrews 7: Part 2

    Last week, I introduced several literary threads regarding Melchizedek in ancient Jewish and Christian sources. Melchizedek is treated in various ways in Jewish texts. In a number of Christian sources, I showed a significant trail of thought where several scholars see the Melchizedek/Christ comparison in Hebrews 7 as typology. This week, I intend to survey a number of significant commentaries for their perspectives on the comparison. This survey is not exhaustive, but it is representative of the field. Recent years have produced an increasing number of high quality studies of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with a few particular studies on the question regarding Melchizedek’s function in Heb. 7, as well. These commentaries are considered in the order of their publication.

    Simon J. Kistemaker’s 1984 commentary on Hebrews is a significant study, renewing academic and ecclesiastical interest in the epistle. Kistemaker acknowledges that contemporary readers know little of Melchizedek since he is only mentioned twice in the OT, so he explains that “the author of Hebrews reasons from the silence of Scripture and constructs his argument on the significance of the king-priest Melchizedek.”[1] In fact, “[the author] reasons like a rabbi of the first century.”[2]

    This expositor is also helpful regarding the lofty descriptions of Melchizedek in Heb. 7:3. Kistemaker makes the point, “A prerequisite for holding the office of priest, therefore, was a proven genealogy. . . Melchizedek, therefore, is unique. He does not fit into the genealogies recorded in Genesis. He seems to belong to a different class.”[3]

    Harold W. Attridge published a commentary in 1989 in the Hermeneia series. His commentary details Heb. 7 and the question of Melchizedek further than Kistemaker’s. He begins by describing the passage as “a playful exegesis of the Genesis story.”[4] Specifically, he names the author of Hebrews’ method as a gezera shawa kind of midrash.[5]

    Gezera shawa is more popularly known in Christian circles are “verbal analogy.”[6] Gezera shawa is defined by Strack and Stemberger, “strictly speaking this is only to be used if two given Torah statements make use of identical (and possibly unique) expressions.”[7] It is also somewhat flexible, however, as it closely related to “the so-called heqqesh, i.e. the (less strictly regulated) topical analogy.”[8]

    In Attridge’s eyes, the author of Hebrews utilizes a popular form of midrash in the late first century[9] to draw an analogy between Melchizedek and Jesus Christ in order to demonstrate the better priesthood of Christ. Attridge presents two options for understanding the nature or status of Melchizedek, which would allow the figure to stand as a useful type for Christ. First, he presents the claim that Melchizedek is “simply a scriptural symbol.”[10] That is, the comparison rests primarily (if not exclusively) on a literary comparison. “[The author of Hebrews] would appear, like Philo, to be uninterested in the person of Melchizedek himself and only concerned with what he represents.”[11] Second, Attridge describes how some readers think Melchizedek is treated as a heavenly being of some sort. He points especially to Heb. 7:8 and Melchizedek’s ‘life.’ “His argument there makes little sense if the Melchizedek whom Abraham encountered were not greater than the patriarch precisely because of the unlimited life attributed to him.”[12] Attridge ultimately rests his case with the latter perspective, citing the material from Qumran as justification for then-contemporary speculation regarding Melchizedek.[13]

    Attridge demonstrates the author of Hebrews’ midrashic method, and explains, based on then-contemporary speculation as evidenced in the Qumran scrolls and the difficulty of Melchizedek’s ‘life’ in Heb. 7:8, that Melchizedek was a kind of heavenly being. An interesting rebuttal to the idea of Melchizedek as a kind of heavenly being is discussed in the section on Luke Timothy Johnson’s commentary, below.

    2001 saw the publishing of Craig R. Koester’s commentary on Hebrews. Koester demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the ancient literature relevant to Melchizedek. One significant contribution is his analysis regarding an eventual genealogy for Melchizedek. “Because extant sources that identify Melchizedek with Shem are later than Hebrews, interpreters more commonly propose that Jewish sources gave Melchizedek a genealogy in order to counter Christian claims.”[14]

    Koester, like the other Christian theologians surveyed, understands the author of Hebrews’ methodology as an argument from the silence of Genesis regarding Melchizedek’s father, mother, etc. In contrast to Attridge, Koester does not claim the author of Hebrews’ perspective to include Melchizedek as a kind of heavenly being. The nature of Melchizedek does not rise to the same importance for Koester as it did Attridge. The point of Hebrews’ comment on Melchizedek’s genealogy is not to describe Melchizedek as a heavenly being. Koester puts it this way, “Hebrews, however, takes silence to mean that genealogy cannot be the defining trait of a priest. If the lack of genealogy did not bar Melchizedek from priesthood, then it should not disqualify Jesus.”[15] For Koester, then, the lack of genealogy is an opportunity for the author of Hebrews to demonstrate Christ’s qualifications for priesthood outside of the Levitical line. This seems more naturally in line with the concerns of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

    Luke Timothy Johnson’s dense monograph from 2006 is a tightly-argued exposition on the epistle. The earliest contribution of his book relevant to the present study is in regard to the analogy employed by the author of Hebrews between Melchizedek and Christ.[16] Johnson tells his readers, “as in all analogy, two elements are required: an element of similarity (or continuity) and an element of dissimilarity (or discontinuity).”[17] With this in mind, Attridge’s argument that the author of Hebrews viewed Melchizedek as a heavenly being becomes much weaker. The reader of Hebrews finds several elements presented in continuity between Melchizedek and Christ. However, the author of Hebrews refers to him as “this man” several times. What the author of Hebrews does not do is declare a positive assertion that Melchizedek is a heavenly being of some kind. With these elements of continuity having been presented, where is the element of discontinuity? Christ is the God-man, the divine human. Melchizedek is not identified as a heavenly being anywhere in Hebrews. While this does not completely prove the author of Hebrews’ perspective on Melchizedek as a scriptural symbol, it demonstrates that Attridge’s conclusion is weak.[18] Since the author of Hebrews’ perspective on Melchizedek as scriptural symbol of heavenly being is so difficult to locate, it seems prudent for exegetes to tread lightly in this area.

    Regarding the grand descriptions of Melchizedek in Heb. 7, Johnson illuminates that “our author follows the interpretive principle that has been called non in tora non in mundo. The silence of Scripture on a given point can be taken as evidence that something did not exist in the extratextual world, either.”[19] It is also worth noting that Johnson comes to the same conclusion as Attridge, that the author of Hebrews views Melchizedek as a kind of heavenly being.[20]

    John Paul Heil’s 2010 monograph contains a brief introduction explaining his view of Hebrews as an epistolary homily intended for a public performance.[21] This book breaks the entire epistle into chiastic units, from start to finish. Heb. 7:1-10 is one of those chiastic units.[22] Heil follows the understanding of previous scholars regarding the grounds for Melchizedek’s lofty descriptors in 7:1-3.[23]

    David L. Allen is the scholar who produced the New American Commentary on Hebrews in 2010. It is a significant contribution to the field, clocking in at over six hundred pages. Allen identifies the Melchizedek/Christ comparison as the Hellenistic rhetorical device “synkrisis” and homiletical midrash.[24] “Synkrisis” compares two subjects of similar quality.[25] One can see the similarity between “synkrisis” and gezera shawa, as they function as comparative devices.[26] Allen, therefore, also supports reading Heb. 7’s laudatory descriptions of Melchizedek as stemming out of the silence of Scripture, as well as the typological understanding of the Melchizedek/Christ comparison.[27]

    Gareth Lee Cockerill has been thinking on the epistle to the Hebrews for years. His 2012 commentary in the NICNT series is an excellent resource for Hebrews studies. Unlike many other scholars, Cockerill does not consider the Melchizedek/Christ comparison as typology.[28] To the contrary, Cockerill asserts that the typology with regards to Christ’s priesthood is between Aaron (type) and Christ (antitype). Melchizedek is described merely as a foreshadow and anticipation of Jesus Christ.[29] His argument primarily rests on the fact that Melchizedek is outside the “old order” of the tabernacle, priesthood, and the Law.[30]

    Cockerill does not consider Melchizedek as a kind of heavenly being or as a pre-incarnate Christophany. Melchizedek is simply a human being who is given a significant role to play.[31]

    [The author’s] commitment to a literal encounter between Abraham and Melchizedek and his concomitant assumption of Melchizedek’s humanity frees him to use Melchizedek without fear that Melchizedek might become the Son’s rival. Thus we have a Melchizedek adequate to foreshadow but unable to compete with the Son.[32]

    For Cockerill, a type/antitype comparison between Melchizedek and Jesus puts Melchizedek in competition with Jesus.

    Cockerill’s commentary is a significant contribution to the study of Hebrews, but his use of the terms of typology is too rigid. It creates and imposes a problem on the text that the author of Hebrews did not create, himself. For the purposes of this study, a simple definition of typology suffices. “Typology…deals with the principle of analogous fulfillment.”[33] The imposition of modern literary categories on ancient literature is difficult at best. Rather, this study seeks to peek over the author’s shoulder, as it were, to illuminate and understand what is already there. It is problematic to sharply define the categories of “foreshadow/anticipation” and “typology,” as Cockerill does here. The author of Hebrews clearly portrays Melchizedek as someone who embodies some features of the Christ; specifically, Melchizedek foreshadows the nature of the Christ’s priesthood. This is typology.

    This concludes the survey of contemporary thinkers on the topic at hand. Next week, I plan to present Melchizedek’s two Old Testament appearances. It will be fairly brief, since he appears in less than half a dozen verses of the OT altogether. They are, however, necessary to get at the meaning likely intended by the author of Hebrews.

    ***

    To go straight to part 3, click HERE.

    Want to see part 4? Click HERE.

    [1] Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, New Testament Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 184f.

    [2] Ibid., 189.

    [3] Ibid., 185. It is also interesting to note an observation Kistemaker made that would have assuaged Martin Luther’s concerns about the Melchizedek/Christ comparison. On page 186, he states that Melchizedek is compared with the Son of God, not the Son of God with Melchizedek. Kistemaker, himself, was reliant on John Albert Bengel’s Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 4, ed. Andrew R. Fausset, 7th ed., Edinburgh: Clark, 1877 for that observation.

    [4] Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia, ed. Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 187.

    [5] Ibid., 128f, 186.

    [6] H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1991), 21. For an incredible list of sources discussing NT use of the OT, see Martin Pickup, “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis,” JETS 51 (2008): 353-82.

    [7] Ibid.

    [8] Ibid. To clarify further, midrashic exegesis is not limited to gezera shawa. See esp. Pickup, 357.

    [9] Ibid., 24.

    [10] Attridge, 191.

    [11] Ibid.

    [12] Ibid.

    [13] Ibid., 191-92. For example, he says the author of Hebrews got the high descriptions of Melchizedek from a hymn to Melchizedek as a source.

    [14] Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Vol. 36, The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 339. See also John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 196-99.

    [15] Ibid., 343.

    [16] Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, The New Testament Library, eds. C. Clifton Black and John T. Carroll (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 175. He also identifies this as gezera shawa.

    [17] Ibid., 31.

    [18] In addition, if the author of Hebrews viewed Melchizedek as a kind of heavenly being, like an angel, would he not present an argument for why Jesus is better than Melchizedek, like he did regarding the angels in chapter 1?

    [19] Ibid., 177.

    [20] Ibid., 177-78.

    [21] John Paul Heil, Hebrews: Chiastic Structures and Audience Response, vol. 46, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, ed. Mark S. Smith (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2010), 24-25. Heil seems strongly influenced by the rabbinic practice of verbal analogy. This is not to denigrate Heil’s structure. It is actually somewhat compelling. For another scholar who sees a chiastic structure to the epistle, see also Linda Lloyd Neeley, “A Discourse Analysis of Hebrews,” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 3-4 (1987): 1-146.

    [22] While it is an interesting argument, it is not especially relevant to the present study on Melchizedek in Hebrews.

    [23] Ibid., 163.

    [24] David L. Allen, 408, 410.

    [25] Ibid.

    [26] Since these two terms function very similarly, they are treated synonymously for the purposes of this study.

    [27] Ibid., 412ff.

    [28] Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 46, 51, 54, 304.

    [29] Ibid., 302.

    [30] Ibid., 304.

    [31] Ibid., 305f.

    [32] Ibid., 306.

    [33] Grant R. Osborne, “Type, Typology,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 1222.

  • Melchizedek and Christ in Hebrews 7: A Typology

    The name “Melchizedek” conjures cloudy images, if anything at all. He is a figure who has a brief role in the narrative of Genesis 14, where Abraham encounters him after the patriarch’s rescue of his nephew Lot. As suddenly as Melchizedek arrives on the scene, he is gone again. Anyone reading the Bible could look for him to pop up again in Genesis, but he does not. Instead, the reader must continue on until Psalm 110, over two-thirds of the way through the Psalms, to find him mentioned one time in one verse. Psalm 110:4 declares of the subject from 110:1, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’”[1]

    Psalm 110 opens a door for the author of Hebrews. This open door allows for a Messianic understanding of Psalm 110, but also for a significance unclear in the original narrative in which Melchizedek appears. Melchizedek is all but unknown in the New Testament, until the reader arrives at the epistle to the Hebrews. This epistle mentions Melchizedek in three different chapters, with multiple references in Hebrews 7. At the reading of Heb. 7:1-3, the reader may become quite confused. How exactly is the author of Hebrews able to justifiably describe Melchizedek in the terms found here? Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote on this topic, and at one point, his dialogue states, “The passage is a difficult one, and requires much explanation.”[2] The aim of this series on Melchizedek and Christ is to describe the function of Jesus’ comparison to Melchizedek in the epistle to the Hebrews as a typology.

     

    HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

     In spite of the scarcity of references to Melchizedek in the Tanakh, he became quite an interesting figure over time as he was interpreted by various Jewish and Christian thinkers, in a kind of spectrum. On one end, he is omitted entirely. In the middle, some treated him as a righteous man, which is always a notable description in Jewish thought. On the other end, some treated him as a divine or near-divine figure. There are a variety of views on Melchizedek that have had impact in Judaism and Christianity over the centuries.[3] This paper treats the primary sources in this simpler spectrum model for the sake of brevity.

    Jewish Sources

    Melchizedek shows up in an assortment of Jewish literature and is portrayed variously. He is definitively found in two Qumran texts, Philo, Josephus, and the Targums. Jubilees also includes an interesting re-telling of the Genesis story. Each source is surveyed for a background for how the book of Hebrews understands Melchizedek.

    Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

    “There hardly are any traces of Melchizedek in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts.”[4] Only two significant mentions of Melchizedek occur in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Each take a different perspective on the biblical figure.

    One text is Jubilees, which – at one point – recounts the events of Genesis 14. In that passage, the named figure is gone. Instead, Melchizedek is replaced by “the priests,” an ambiguous group that mutes what later became significant to Christianity and certain sects of Judaism. “This might be an intentional avoidance by the author of Jubilees, who favors Levitical priestly interests.”[5] Even if Steudel’s point is conjecture, it is, at the very least, a significant contrast with other Jewish texts that hold Melchizedek in high regard.

    2 Enoch includes “the Exaltation of Melchizedek” in chapters 69 through 73.[6] In this narrative, Methuselah’s role is greatly expanded from the Genesis account, and there is a detailed narrative of Melchizedek’s parents. More specifically, Melchizedek has no earthly father: he is divinely conceived in the womb of his elderly mother.[7] 2 Enoch also presents a genealogy for Melchizedek via Shem, Noah’s son. It does not take the author long to grant Melchizedek a high status. In a vision to Nir, God says Melchizedek will be “the priest to all holy priests,” thereby exalting him to a high position. This text holds a high view on this ancient priest, but it may have been an attempt to counter the discussion in Heb. 7.

    Qumran

    At Qumran, Melchizedek was honored as both a righteous man and a more highly exalted figure. The clearest references to him are in the Genesis Apocryphon and the Melchizedek document from Cave 11.[8] Each work constructs a different interpretation of Melchizedek.

    The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) is a second century B.C. [9] text recounting or rewriting of the book of Genesis as a conversation between Noah, Noah’s father Lamech, and Lamech’s father Methuselah, based on a report by Methuselah’s father Enoch. The recounting of Genesis 14 is essentially the same as the original. Melchizedek is presented in essentially the same way as in the biblical narrative. Differences between 1QapGen and Genesis do not appear in the Genesis 14 recounting until the issues of Salem and the tithe arise.

    The Melchizedek document (11QMelch, or 11Q13) is a first or second century B.C. text[10] and it holds a significantly different interpretation. In this text, Melchizedek is announced as the judge on the eschatological “Day” when all mankind is separated into their ultimate, apocalyptic divisions.[11] More than that, he does not appear like an earthly mortal at all. He is portrayed “as a celestial high priest, judge, and savior aided by a heavenly retinue.”[12] Similar to 2 Enoch, Melchizedek is elevated to unique heights. “Rather he seems to be almost identical with the prince of light (cf. Rule of the Community, 1QS iii.20), the archangel Michael (cf. War Scroll 1QM xvii.6-8), the angel of truth (1QS iii.24), and the great hand of God (cf. 4Q177 xi.14); he further exhibits parallels to the Son of Man.”[13] It appears that the Qumran sect, like so many others, preferred to emphasize the etymology of “Melchizedek” for interpreting the man overall.

    Philo

    Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, Egypt, who lived in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. He was quite prolific, and wrote on many subjects related to the Hebrew Bible. Among his thoughts on the events in the life of Abraham, the reader can find Philo’s perspective on Melchizedek. Philo mentions him in three works – each one giving a different piece of Philo’s interpretation of the figure at hand.

    The work On Mating, with The Preliminary Studies contains a very short text on Melchizedek. Philo claims that Melchizedek’s knowledge about the ‘tradition of the tithe’ was self-taught.[14] Thus, Philo sees Melchizedek as a self-taught priest of YHWH, which is not at all a common occurrence in the biblical text. This is high praise.

    In On Abraham, Philo specifically calls Melchizedek “the high priest of the most high God…”[15] Philo elevates Melchizedek as he seeks to clarify the priest-king’s importance to his readers.[16] The high priest in the Levitical system served a special purpose beyond that of the regular priests, so the philosopher borrows that idea to demonstrate Melchizedek’s importance.

    The third text, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III, includes a discussion on Melchizedek’s office. “King of Salem” is interpreted as “king of peace.”[17] The philosopher also explains the etymology of “Melchizedek.”[18] Philo contrasts this righteous king with a hypothetical despot as natural opposites. Further into the passage, Philo contrasts Melchizedek’s generosity of bread and wine with the Ammonite/Moabite inhospitality from the wilderness-wandering period of the exodus. Melchizedek is praised, but his opposites have “no thought of God.”[19]

    Philo’s view of Melchizedek is certainly laudatory, based on his reading of Genesis in the Septuagint and his allegorical method of interpretation. At the same time, “Philo took Melchizedek to be an actual human high priest…”[20] So this human priest has “as his portion Him that is, and all his thoughts of God are high and vast and sublime…”[21] Melchizedek only thinks of God. He is generous to a hungry and thirsty people. He embodies peace and righteousness. For Philo, Melchizedek is the best kind of priest.[22]

    Josephus

    Josephus was a first century Jewish historian who had a relatively high view of Melchizedek, seen in The Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War.[23]

    The Antiquities of the Jews is a history of the Jewish people, taking the Hebrew Bible seriously for matters of historiography. Ant. 1.180 demonstrates Josephus’ perspective on Melchizedek as a historical figure and interprets the etymology of his name as a historical comment on his character, as did Philo. So, for Josephus, Melchizedek is a righteous man. Again, this is high praise in Judaism, within both the Hebrew Bible and elsewhere.

    Book Six of The Jewish War recounts the siege and sack of Jerusalem by Roman forces in the late first century. In the final chapter of that book, Josephus quickly recounts Jerusalem’s previous conquerors and the man to whom he attributes Jerusalem’s founding – Melchizedek. Mentioned at 6.438, Melchizedek is again called “the Righteous King, for such he really was…” Melchizedek is even called the first priest of God, and Josephus claims that this righteous king built the first temple to God in Jerusalem. One must notice the escalated view. In Antiquities, Melchizedek was a righteous king. In The Jewish War, his primacy of priesthood and temple construction elevate him even further. Josephus, ultimately, held a high view of Melchizedek.

    Ancient Christian Sources

    With the dissemination of the Epistle to the Hebrews came an explosion in Christian interest in Melchizedek. Thanks to Heb. 7, Christian thinkers became quite enamored with Ps. 110 even more than the Gen. 14 narrative. Due to my own previous study of this subject matter, I believe in a straightforward typological connection between Melchizedek and Christ. Thus, rather than surveying the wide number and variety of sources available, I present the following scholars and theologians, arranged in the order of their lives through history, beginning with a church father and concluding with a figure from the Great Awakenings.

    Theodoret of Cyrrhus

    Theodoret of Cyrrhus was a fifth century theologian and bishop of Cyrrhus who dealt with a series of heresies during his tenure as bishop.[24] “In 447 Theodoret composed Eranistes (‘the beggar’) or Polymorphos (‘the man of many shapes’): this is a work of great theological importance, which was composed to refute the monophysite teaching that Eutyches spread at Constantinople…”[25] This text is a dialogue between an orthodox Christian and a monophysite Christian. In the second dialogue, these two characters debate the meaning of the Epistle to the Hebrews’ thoughts on Melchizedek in the context of their discussion of monophysitism’s heresy, which claimed that Jesus had one nature at the incarnation, and not both.

    Theodoret utilizes a comparison of “type” and “archetype” to demonstrate that Melchizedek was merely an image of the reality of Christ, a type of the archetype. He explains that the author of Hebrews does not and could not consider Melchizedek as divinely conceived in his mother’s womb, like Jesus. Rather, he points to a plain-sense reading of the Scriptures. Melchizedek’s mother and father are not recorded in Genesis 14, so the author of Hebrews shows this comparison between the Melchizedek and Christ in pointing from lesser to greater. If Melchizedek is a great priest who has no mother and father recorded in the Scriptures, then Jesus, the eternal high priest, who was divinely conceived in Mary’s womb, is of the same order and even better than Melchizedek.[26] The same reasoning is applied to each of Melchizedek’s descriptions in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Regarding the order of the Melchizedekian priesthood, Theodoret says priesthood “belongs rather to man than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchisedec. For Melchisedec was a high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ for all men has made the right holy offering of salvation.”[27] Theodoret is extremely helpful in looking at the Scriptures in context with a reasonable eye.

    Thomas Aquinas

    The medieval scholar Thomas Aquinas also took on the issue of the Melchizedekian priesthood in his seminal work.[28] The 22nd question of Summa Theologiae is on the Priesthood of Christ. Melchizedek is dealt with under Article 6 of that question. Aquinas’ thoughts on the Melchizedekian priesthood are significant due to the fact that his foundational assertion denies that Christ’s priesthood is according to the order of Melchizedek.

    Aquinas raises three objections that lead to this denial.[29] 1) Since Christ is the supreme priest, he is also the source, which means his priesthood cannot be according to another order. 2) Since the “Old-Law” priesthood was closer in time to Christ’s day than Melchizedek’s, it makes more sense to Aquinas that Christ would take designations from that priesthood rather than Melchizedek’s. 3) Finally, he quotes Heb. 7:2-3 and declares these descriptors belong to the Son of God alone.

    Aquinas’ next point, however, remains in line with Theodoret and others. Pointing to Gen. 14, Aquinas asserts Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek makes the priest analogous to Christ in that their priesthoods are pre-eminent over the Old-Law priesthood. Melchizedek “symbolized in advance the pre-eminence of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical priesthood.”[30] The very last paragraph in answer to question 22 is also in agreement with Theodoret. He quotes again from Heb. 7:2-3 and explains these descriptors with, “not because [Melchizedek] lacked these, but because we read nothing of them in Scripture.”[31] Aquinas’ two positive propositions are that Christ and Melchizedek are analogous because they are both pre-eminent over the Levitical priesthood, and that the magnificent claims of Heb. 7:2-3 can be understood by a simple explanation, which is the same as Theodoret’s.

    Martin Luther

    Within the enormous corpus of Martin Luther, the priest Melchizedek is mentioned and relevant Scriptural passages exposited quite often. Three volumes of lectures in particular prove the most helpful for understanding Luther’s exposition on the passage relevant to Melchizedek.

    Luther largely utilizes the same methodology as Theodoret and Aquinas before him.[32] In his lecture on Gen. 14, he immediately explains the situation with typology.[33] For Luther, just like the last two Christian thinkers surveyed, Melchizedek is described thusly in Hebrews because of the omissions of the text in Genesis.

    Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards’ Typological Writings does not drill down on the Melchizedek passages as thoroughly as Martin Luther, but does make one statement about the priest. Edwards demonstrates Melchizedek as one who ‘resembles’ Christ via Ps. 110:4.[34] Edwards, therefore, also sees the Melchizedek/Christ comparison as typology. Though Edwards did not see fit to deal with Heb. 7:1-3 precisely to explain the order of Melchizedek, he does agree with Theodoret and others, that it is a typological comparison.

    There is a thread though the history of the church that understands the Melchizedek/Christ comparison as typology, starting at least as early as Theodoret of Cyrrhus, that understood the descriptions of Melchizedek in Heb. 7 as stemming from omissions in the Old Testament Scriptures leading to a form of typological understanding of the figure. Next week, I will present the perspectives of seven contemporary scholars on the Melchizedek/Christ comparison.

    ***

    To go straight to part 2, click HERE.

    Part 3? Click HERE.

    Part 4! Click HERE.

     

    [1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001). All quotes of the Scriptures hereafter come from this translation.

    [2] Theodoret of Cyrus, “Dialogues: The ‘Eranistes’ or ‘Polymorphus’ of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 188.

    [3] David Allen identifies seven major views on the identity of Melchizedek. Rather than looking at Melchizedek through particular categories – as a precise identification of Melchizedek could be a paper in and of itself – the present study examines the various perspectives on Melchizedek through a simpler rubric. David L. Allen, Hebrews, vol. 35, The New American Commentary series, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 408f.

    [4] Annette Steudel, “Melchizedek,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 1: A-M, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 535.

    [5] Steudel, “Melchizedek,” 535. Emphasis in original.

    [6] The text used for this study was from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, New York: Doubleday, 1983. There is significant debate whether this work is from a Jewish or Christian author. It is placed in this section on Jewish interpreters because it is so heavily dependent on the Hebrew Bible.

    [7] See esp. 2 Enoch 71.

    [8] I did not treat the uncertain references to Melchizedek in the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as 4Q401 or 4Q544, due to space considerations and the tangential nature of the references. For a full treatment of references or connections to Melchizedek in Second Temple literature, see Eric F. Mason, ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 74, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, ed. Florentino Garcia Martinez, Boston: Brill, 2008.

    [9] Steudel, “Melchizedek,” 536.

    [10] Joseph L. Angel, “Melchizedek,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, vol. 2, eds. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press, 2013), 1482.

    [11] A. S. Van der Woude, “Melchisedek als Himmlische erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen midraschim aus Qumran höhle XI,” Kaf-He 1940-1965 Jubilee Volume. Oudtestamentische Studiën 14. P. A. H. de Boer, editor (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 362. Translation mine.

    [12] Angel, “Melchizedek,” Outside the Bible, 1482.

    [13] Steudel, “Melchizedek,” 536.

    [14] Philo, “On Mating, with The Preliminary Studies,” in Philo, vol. IV, Loeb Classical Library, trans. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 509.

    [15] Philo, “On Abraham,” in Philo, vol. VI, Loeb Classical Library, trans. F.H. Colson (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935), 115. Emphasis mine.

    [16] Shinya Nomoto blames Philo for the Christian conclusion that Jesus united the idea of two Messiahs – a priest and a king – rather than seeing it as the perspective of the authors of the Scriptures. Shinya Nomoto, “Herkunft und Struktur der Hohenpriestervorstellung im Hebräerbrief,” Novum Testamentum 10:1 (1968), 15.

    [17] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III,” in Philo, vol. I, Loeb Classical Library, trans. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929), 353.

    [18] Ibid.

    [19] Ibid., 355. He quotes from Deuteronomy 23:3f, but his focus is especially on verse 4, which says, “because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt…”

    [20] David L. Allen, 410.

    [21] Philo, Genesis, 355.

    [22] It is curious to note a comment on Melchizedek’s gift of bread and wine by Erwin R. Goodenough. He claims, “There are other proof texts, of course, which were often used by later Judaism to justify its wine rituals. So the fact that Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, brought forth bread and wine, which apparently he held as he blessed Abraham, was made a precedent of the greatest importance for the later kiddush, but the original meaning of the incident is quite lost.” The author does not substantiate his claim with primary or secondary sources, but it is possible that Melchizedek in Gen. 14 sheds some light on the use of libations in cultic Judaism. Perhaps another topic for another paper. Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 6: Fish, Bread, and Wine (The second of two volumes), Bollingen Series XXXVII (Kingsport, TN: Kingsport Press, Inc., 1956), 128-29.

    [23] References to Josephus come by William Whiston, A.M., trans., The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

    [24] Elena Cavalcanti, “Theodoret of Cyrrhus,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, vol. 3: P-Z, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, trans. Erik A. Koenke, Joseph T. Papa, and Eric E. Hewett (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 749.

    [25] Ibid., 750.

    [26] Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., 187ff.

    [27] Ibid., 189.

    [28] The text referenced for this study was Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae: Latin text and English translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices and Glossaries, vol. 50: The One Mediator (3a. 16-26), ed. Colman E. O’Neill, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

    [29] Ibid., 155.

    [30] Ibid., 157.

    [31] Ibid.

    [32] Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14, Luther’s Works, vol. 2, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960), p. 381ff. See also Martin Luther, First Lectures on the Psalms II: Psalms 76-126, Luther’s Works, vol. 11, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1976), 368

    [33] Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, p. 381ff. See also Martin Luther, Selected Psalms II, Luther’s Works, vol. 13, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), 312-13.

    [34] Jonathan Edwards, “Types of the Messiah,” in Typological Writings, eds. Mason I. Lowance, Jr. and David H. Watters (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 304. An interesting side note from the same passage in Typological Writings: Edwards saw the ‘order of Melchizedek’ traced through the promise to (2 Sam. 7:14) and line of David, making it a covenantal/genetic link, as well.

  • Returning in May

    Maybe only the Google bots noticed, but the frequency of the posts here has dwindled of late. I am well into my Spring term, neck deep in paper writing, Hosea translating, researching on teaching adults, and other unspeakable projects (ok, maybe not so unspeakable: I’m taking Reading French, too).

    I will return with more posts in the month of May, continuing my series on interpreting the Bible to give you tools and concepts whenever you’re reading the Bible – whether that’s during your personal devotional time, in a Bible study, or preparing to teach or preach a passage of Scripture. Following that series, I’m still considering how to order future topics. I plan to present studies on a subject in the Epistle to the Hebrews as well as the book of Hosea.

    Any opinions on which you would rather read first?

    be-back-soon

    And on that note, the ravages of parenting small children in the 2010’s require me to post this, as well.

  • For Your Consideration: Two Online Resources for Studying Paul’s Missionary Journeys

    The book of Acts records a highly detailed account of the apostle Paul’s missionary journeys. We can read about every town or city he visited, and in what order. Luke did not record some other mundane details, however, including the costs of the trips, exactly how long it would take to get from one place to another, that sort of thing. Well, OpenBible.info has given interested historians that data by way of Stanford University’s ORBIS.

    Stephen Smith of OpenBible.info provides some interesting numbers on distance traveled, duration of each journey, and cost per person in denarii. For your consideration: statistics on Paul’s missionary journeys, including his trip to Rome for trial.

    The second link I want to share is an even more detailed look at Paul’s missionary journeys written by Dale Bargmann of Hosanna Lutheran Church in Houston, TX. Bargmann provides a detailed look at each step along the way. He provides historical context, discussing relevant cultural, geographical, and religious issues. He also provides a variety of photographs of these locations, to give the reader an idea of what Paul was looking at when he came through town or stood up to preach.

    For your consideration: a detailed historical and visual look at Paul’s missionary journeys.

    Could you find this kind of data in good Bible dictionaries and atlases? Sure! But these are online resources that you can access for free right through your phone, tablet, or laptop. I suggest you give these a look.

  • Mark 7:24-30 – Does it represent a historical event?

    The issue of miracles has long been a matter of contention between those who allow for their possibility (or likelihood) and those who disagree. At the center of the Christian perspective on miracles is the person and work of Jesus Christ. If a reader of the Gospel of Mark, for example, does not consider the historical likelihood of miracles, it is easy to dismiss the historical event behind the text that presents any given miracle story.

    This article, however, argues that Mark 7:24-30, the meeting of Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman whose daughter is demon-possessed, represents a historical event based on several arguments related to historiographical analysis. It begins with the definitions of Gospel as a genre, including whether or not they intend to present historical truth claims, and the difference between parable and miracle stories, followed by a brief explanation of the passage. Next, a few thinkers across history are briefly surveyed for their interpretation of the historicity of this event. Two scholars are then examined for their treatment of the Gospels’ miracles stories – one a minimalist (minimizing the historical truth claims of the text) and one a maximalist (one who believes the historical truth claims of the text). Finally, the study ends with the argument on why Mark 7:24-30 represents a genuine historical event in the life of Jesus.

    What is a Gospel?

    Any given genre is distinct from another because of its particular set of characteristics and the particular entry within that genre at hand. Formal features, author’s intention, compositional process, setting of the author, setting of intended use, and contents constitute the characteristics that should be examined for determining genre.[1] In the case of the Gospels, there is some debate on whether they are a distinct genre or whether they are a subgenre of another genre in Greco-Roman culture.

    Much of form criticism emphasized that the four Gospels “embody the early Christian proclamation of the significance of Jesus and were written exclusively to serve this proclamation.”[2] Those who disagree generally focus on comparing the Gospels to one of three genres, choosing from biography, history, or novel. Hurtado discusses the basic factors involved, making a good baseline with which to work.

    Hurtado establishes the narratives of the Gospels as “not impartial accounts.”[3] They promote Jesus as a good figure and portray his enemies negatively. Given their interest in the narratives of Jesus’ ministry and his death and resurrection, as well as their relatively unified portrayal,[4] they are quite different from the apocryphal gospels that only collect sayings attributed to Jesus, portray only Jesus’ childhood, and which have different theological perspectives.[5] Hurtado describes the Gospels as at least inspired by the very popular genre of Greco-Roman biographies of the first century, but he also describes them as a distinctive subgenre within that Greco-Roman genre.[6]

    Justin M. Smith provides a four-part rubric by which any work of Greco-Roman biography (including the Gospels) can be sorted. He proposes: Ancient-Definite (in which the author writes without living memory of the subject and for a definite audience), Ancient-Indefinite (in which the author writes for an indefinite audience), Contemporary-Definite (in which the author writes with the benefit of living memory  of the subject and for a definite audience), and Contemporary-Indefinite (in which the author writes for an indefinite audience). [7]

    Using these categories, it is the contention of this paper that Mark’s Gospel falls within the Contemporary-Definite understanding. Such biographies are about a person of significant interest “who lived within living memory of the author and are directed toward distinguishable audiences.”[8] Eyewitness accounts are vital to Contemporary passages. In addition, Smith describes the Contemporary category with a comment on the personal nature of the subgenre. “Often in this type of biography there is a personal relationship between the author and subject that transcends a conventional interest in the subject as a moral example or person of interest.”[9]

    The only difficulty in Smith’s model – as with the others – is that there is no general rubric to distinguish a hard line between a pericope as a historical event or not. This is the intention of each of the aforementioned scholars, as each recognized the ambiguity regarding historiography in Greco-Roman biography. Smith, especially, does not presume to claim any particular passage as a historical event or not. Certainly, that is not in the purpose of the cited article, but it is an indication of Smith’s perspective on the loose nature of Greco-Roman historiography.

    Each of these scholars presume that there is a degree of historical truth claim within the Gospel narratives, however, which leads the present study to the point of contention over Mark 7:24-30. Each of the methods argued by these scholars allow Mark 7:24-30 within the circle of historical possibility by the virtue of its placement within a kind of Greco-Roman biography.

    One scholar is more specific. Philip L. Shuler makes a few assertions about history in his monograph. He claims:

    Works may vary in topic, scope, and, to some extent, purpose, but the term history is applicable in each case, and each author appears to understand its designation, although each may differ over the specific content of history. Likewise, one cannot place arbitrarily restrictive definitions upon the type of biography to which these authors refer.[10]

    Smith’s model avoids the “restrictive definitions” that Shuler warns against. It also allows for a flexibility in the term “history” such that the accurate reporting of a historical event is a good possibility.

    Distinguishing Parables from Historical Truth Claims

    A historical truth claim is an assertion or description that is meant to communicate a story to the listener or reader that is based on one or more historical events or occurrences. A parable might, at first, seem very similar. It is worthwhile to distinguish between the two.

    A parable “is an extended metaphor (an implied comparison) referring to a fictional event or events narrated in past time to express a moral or spiritual truth.”[11] In the canonical Gospels, it is different in form from the narratives of Jesus’ actions. A parable in the canonical Gospels typically leaves motives unexplained, is usually taken from everyday life (though not necessarily realistic, a la the 10,000 talent debt in Matthew 18), is the instigator of thoughtful questions (“What do you think…?”), and thus requires both the hearer to make a similar judgment about religious matters as well as to make a reversal in one’s thinking.[12] Most, if not all, of the parables are stories told by Jesus as he goes about his own story in the Gospel narratives.

    The encounter between Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman does not carry any of the characteristics of parables. Her motive is quite clear – she wants an exorcism for her daughter, who is not with her at the moment. Jesus’ motive is quite clear – his mission is to the Jewish people, so any miracle-working he does among Gentiles is secondary. It is not a story of everyday life. It is extremely uncommon to have a demon-possessed child in one’s family. More than that, there is no everyday-life kind of milieu to the story. It is told in a straightforward manner, as if this is what happened to Jesus one day. No question is posited in this story by either of the speaking characters. Nor is there a judgment to be passed by either the Syro-Phoenician woman or the reader. Jesus speaks about the priority of the Jewish people as a matter of fact.

    Rather than a parable, this pericope is one kind of miracle story. Most miracle stories in Mark are healings, but several are exorcisms, one is a raising from the dead, and there are five miracles regarding the natural world. Telford, based on the work of Bultmann, promotes a three-part structure for the Synoptic miracle material using the terminology of ‘healing’ to function for both healing and exorcism stories. The first part consists of, “the condition of the patient being recounted, [second,] the healing described, and [third,] the cure demonstrated.”[13] This narrative matches that criteria to the letter. The woman describes her daughter’s condition in v. 26, the healing is described in v. 29, and the cure is demonstrated in v. 30.

    Mark 7:24-30 is not a parable. It is one kind of miracle story; specifically, an exorcism story. It is a slice from this particular kind of Greco-Roman biography portraying the meeting of Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman as a historical event.

    A Brief Description of the Passage

    Mark 7:24-30 is quoted here in its entirety:

    And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.[14]

    This miracle story fits Telford and Bultmann’s structural form, though some of the details are quite different from the other exorcism stories in Mark. Firstly, the ethnicity of the recipient is Gentile, which marks it from the other exorcisms (with the possible exception of the man possessed by Legion in Mk 5:1-20). Secondly, Jesus is reluctant to cast out the demon, whereas he has no hesitation in the other exorcism stories.[15] Thirdly, it is remarkable that he exorcises the demon from a distance.[16]

    A Brief History of the History of Interpretation – Fictional Event or Historical Event?

    Over the life of the church, different scholars held to different perspectives on the historicity of Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30. Given the constraints of the present study, only two scholars are here surveyed.

    Origen

    Origen, in his commentary on Matthew’s version of this story, made some statements that show that he stands somewhat in a middling position on the historicity of the event between Jesus and Syro-Phoenician woman. In one place, he treats Jesus’ retreat from Jewish territory to Gentile territory as genuinely historical as a response to the Pharisees. On the other hand, Jesus’ entire trip through the areas of Tyre and Sidon is treated allegorically.[17]

    Adela Yarbro Collins

    Some who see 7:24a as redaction by the author point to Mk. 3:8 where the people from the region of Tyre come to Jesus as evidence that Jesus would not travel to Tyre. It simply functions to create a Gentile-centric setting. As to 7:24-30, Collins says that it is a form of an “objection quest,” where the objection (from Jesus) must be overcome (by her faith and persistence) in order for the quest to be successful.[18] It is merely a story that portrays the character of Jesus while simultaneously justifying the predominantly Gentile composition of the church at the time of its inclusion in Mark. She does not hold that Mark 7:24-30 represents a historical event. She sees this entire Gospel as the end result of a long line of editors.[19]

    A Minimalist Perspective

    Floyd V. Filson wrote several noteworthy works in the field of New Testament studies. One of those is his A New Testament History, a book published in the mid-1960s. His section on the miracles of Jesus is relatively clear, giving a glimpse at a minimalist scholar’s perspective on the alleged miracles of Jesus.

    In his subsection on “The Miracles and Their Meaning,” Filson deals with the maximalist view directly and quickly, though his language could be somewhat clearer. For example, his opening paragraph on the miracles includes the statement that, “for the Gospel writers [the miracles] are an essential part of [Jesus’] ministry.”[20] The very next sentence clarifies what the previous one left cloudy: “Two things hinder their ready acceptance by many modern readers.”[21]

    The first hindrance, for Filson, is “that these stories are written in a prescientific or nonscientific atmosphere, and so to an age steeped in the thought forms of modern science they seem discredited.”[22] He allows that the modern world does not know all things about science, but he does not release the principle of analogy here. He binds up the miracles in it quite nicely.

    The second hindrance is “that some stories have grown in the telling.”[23] He uses a weak example in comparing Mark and Matthew’s slightly differing accounts of Jairus’ daughter. Whereas, in Mark, she is on death’s door, then dies before her father can get home, in Matthew, Jairus tells Jesus that his daughter had already died. For Filson, such an alteration from Mark to Matthew is a sign of making the story more than it was. To make the story more significant later, then, is evidence that it was not a genuine miracle originally.

    As is demonstrated below, in the sub-section on the maximalist perspective, personified by Craig Blomberg, the principle of analogy is demonstrated as a weak principle that cannot deny the possibility of miraculous events. The second hindrance holds no water whatsoever. A unique event occurring to a unique individual is no less likely to be genuine if the retelling of the story makes that unique individual stronger, smarter, or faster. Maybe the retelling of the story is an intentional deception, but the size of the fish in the latest telling does not negate the genuine existence of the original fish.

    A Maximalist Perspective

    Craig Blomberg is a clear and thoughtful voice in the debate over the historical reliability of the New Testament, especially the Gospels. In 1987, he published a high quality monograph on the subject, which gave scholars a clear method for understanding the problems at hand as well as a possible method for solving those problems. This section will deal with this book in detail, focusing especially on the third chapter, in which Blomberg handles the issue of miracles.

    Blomberg demonstrates that there are three issues behind the rejection of gospel miracles. The first is the scientific objection. He defines the objection thusly, “In short, the scientific objection to the credibility of miracles is that the discovery of the natural, physical laws by which the universe operates has proved them impossible.”[24] Though he discusses science and faith rather broadly in this subsection, his solution to this objection is rather simple. Based on Blomberg’s theistic worldview, presupposing an omnipotent personal agent, he is able to say, “Most defenders of miracles today, therefore, do not deny the validity of the regularities of nature. Instead they deny that a miracle must be a violation of such ‘laws.’”[25]

    The second issue at hand is the philosophical objection, which stems out of David Hume’s thought. Blomberg pulls four reasons out of Hume’s works to show why a natural explanation is always more likely than a supernatural one. In addition, he points to a further point, which – if all four of the previous arguments were proven false – Hume said would still prove his perspective. This final point is that the weight of probability would still favor a non-miraculous explanation of every extraordinary phenomenon. Blomberg shows that such reasoning was debunked at least as early as 1819, when the book Historical Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte was published by Richard Whately. Whately applied Hume’s final point to the life of Napoleon, a unique individual for many reasons. “Whately demonstrated by it that one has no reason to believe that most of the accounts of his life are true, a conclusion which is patently absurd.”[26]

    The third issue at hand is the historical objection, which comes from the work of Ernst Troeltsch. Specifically, Blomberg takes on the principle of analogy. This principle states “that the historian has no right to accept as historical fact the account of a past event for which he has no analogy in the present.”[27] In response, Blomberg says that he paraphrases Wolfhart Pannenberg, “it is not the lack of analogy that suggests something is unhistorical but only the presence of an analogy to something already known to be unhistorical.”[28]

    With the problems regarding miracles generally addressed, Blomberg is free to presume the validity of at least some miracles, if not all those reported in the Gospels and Acts. His next subsection deals with the problem of identifying miracles as genuine through asking what parallels to Jesus’ miracles there are (if any), and how significant are they. He also asks after what the evidence is for the reliability of the gospel miracle stories and how strong that evidence is.

    He surveys miracles in the NT apocrypha, but finds them to grow out of heretical sects like docetism in the Gospel of Peter. He also examines Greek heroes, but ultimately denies that they truly qualify as parallels. Next, Blomberg looks at magic and magical writings, but ultimately rejects those as options for understanding Jesus’ miracles. The only parallels Blomberg accepts are miracle workers from Charismatic Judaism, though the issue of authority of quite different.

    In Blomberg’s view, the miracles attributed to Jesus can be considered authentic as a result of two major evidences. It is because of their uniqueness, since no other miracle worker did quite what Jesus did, and because of their central purpose, which is to act as signs and indications that the Messiah has come, which Blomberg demonstrates through binding the miracles to Jesus’ teaching as an inseparable combination.

    A Case for Mark 7:24-30 as a Historical Event

    Several concerns have been raised as the historicity of Jesus’ miracles in general. Blomberg’s book is incredibly helpful in this area. Individual miracles still need discussion, however. A wide range of scholars were surveyed for their perspectives on this passage and miracles in general. Their concerns are generally listed below, and are then engaged before the present study makes positive assertions with regards to the passage at hand.[29]

    Many scholars have raised concerns over the historicity of Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman. First of all, any scholar who denies miracles based on the principle of analogy have a problem with this exorcism pericope from the start. Second, there is the concern that Mark does not seem to know his Palestinian geography, as he depicts Jesus following a zig-zag, illogical course all over Galilee in these chapters in the Gospel. Third, the fact that this passage can and does encourage Gentile Christians to take encouragement because it depicts the Gentile mission as an activity stemming out of the life and ministry of Jesus.

    As discussed above, the principle of analogy is unable to deny the possibility of miracles. If miracles are possible, then not only is it possible that Jesus exorcised demons from the Syro-Phoenician’s daughter at a distance, but it is possible that Jesus really did predict the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70. This would allow for an early date for Mark – maybe as early as the 40s or 50s. An earlier date for this Gospel would allow for Mark to have known Jesus personally, and for the vetting of the narrative of this Gospel by eyewitnesses.

    Dealing with the second point, Mark utilized a loose structure to allow for his thematic points. Mark 7:24-30 is set between the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand.”There is Mark’s well-known ‘sandwich’ technique of including one episode with the two parts of another, a form of chiasm or concentric structuring.”[30] The point of this loose structure, with regards to the passage at hand, is that Jesus is declaring the Gentiles clean and a part of the kingdom of God.

    Finally, the fact that this passage does encourage Gentile Christians in that way and was probably intended to encourage them in that way does not make it any less genuine an event in the life of Jesus.

    The case for the historicity of the event in 7:24-30 is already fairly well established, but there is one more topic to discuss that makes it stronger. In both versions of this passage – in Mark and in Matthew – Jesus is not only hesitant to exorcise the demon from the woman’s daughter, he actually uses what can be called a racist term for Gentiles in the discussion. The inclusion of such dialogue is unflattering, to say the least. Such dialogue makes Jesus look less appealing to Gentiles, perhaps. The description of this demon-possessed girl as a “dog” is so harsh that Matthew softens it in his version, adding Jesus’ statement about the Syro-Phoenician woman’s “great” faith.[31] Thus, Jesus looks better for complimenting her and the racist term is counteracted by his strong compliment. Luke, however, writing for a Gentile audience, completely omits the passage from his Gospel.

    The harsh strength of the term “dogs” for Gentiles, as well as Luke’s Gentile-minded writing combined with his omission of the entire story, are strong indicators that this encounter was a genuine event in the life of Jesus.

    [1] L. W. Hurtado, “Gospel (Genre),” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 277.

    [2] Ibid.

    [3] Ibid., 278.

    [4] Each canonical Gospel certainly has its distinctive features, but the teachings of Jesus are generally in agreement with each other, as are the narratives, etc. Much of the intricacies of the Synoptic Problem are not dealt with in this study, though it is a significant issue worth the spilling of all that ink over the centuries. For the purposes of this paper, the Synoptic Gospels especially (though John is, as well) are taken as generally the same in tone and message. Where the differences become relevant to the present study, they are discussed.

    [5] Hurtado, 278-79.

    [6] Ibid., 279-81.

    [7] Justin M. Smith, “Genre, Sub-Genre and Questions of Audience: A Proposed Typology for Greco-Roman Biography,” in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, v. 4 (2007), 212f.

    [8] Ibid., 213. Without belaboring the point, this paper assumes that Mark is writing for a Roman audience. There is a significant argument that Mark wrote for an audience located in Syria, but the style of the Gospel demonstrates an audience who is Roman by culture. Another topic, for another paper, it seems.

    [9] Ibid. In addition, it is worth mentioning here that the tradition of Marcan authorship passed down by Papias is significant, but I disagree with Papias on one point. Papias, when quoted by Eusebius, says that Mark “had neither heard the Lord nor been in his company…” (Sean P. Kealy, Mark’s Gospel: A History of its Interpretation [New York: Paulist Press, 1982], 12). This paper maintains that the young man who has to flee naked from Gethsemane is Mark’s signature, essentially, on this Gospel. If, therefore, he was in the Garden with the disciples, then Mark knew Jesus personally. Thus, he would fit the Contemporary category as one who knew Jesus in life and who had a personal interest in writing about the subject.

    [10] Philip L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 41. Emphasis in original.

    [11] K. R. Snodgrass, “Parable,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 593.

    [12] Ibid., 594.

    [13] W. R. Telford, New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 96. The essential structure is Bultmann’s, though Telford works with it some to see if it can be modified for something more specific, which is both interesting reading and nonessential to the present study.

    [14] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001). Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from this tradition.

    [15] The possibility of racism, etc., is dealt with in more detail below.

    [16] One of those exorcisms takes place in 9:14-29, so any suggestion of a progression of demonstrating his power is on weak ground.

    [17] Origen, Commentary on Matthew, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, vol. II: Mark, Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds. (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 95.

    [18] Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia, Harold W. Attridge, ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 365.

    [19] Ibid, 1-43. She has a long series of comments about history and historiography in general that, while probably worth the read, could not be dealt with in detail, given the scope of this study.

    [20] Floyd V. Filson, A New Testament History, New Testament Library, Alan Richardson, et al, eds. (London: William Clowes & Sons Ltd, 1965), 105.

    [21] Ibid.

    [22] Ibid.

    [23] Ibid.

    [24] Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP Academic, 1987), 74.

    [25] Ibid., 75. Emphasis in original.

    [26] Ibid., 78.

    [27] Ibid.

    [28] Ibid., 79-80.

    [29] See the bibliography for these scholars.

    [30] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 230-31.

    [31] Mt. 15:21-28