A blog by Adam W. Christman

A Blog by Adam Christman

  • 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.

  • Kinesthetic Learning and the Forgotten Learners

    We Know Better

                Teaching is more than standing at the front of a room and talking. Every teacher knows this, intellectually, but how many do something about it? How many of us engage with kinesthetic learning week to week, or even any kind of consistent basis? We’ve all read the books on learning styles. We’ve all heard the admonishments against neglecting kinesthetic learning. Kinesthetic learning is a valid and necessary method for adults as well as children. LeFever sums up the problem nicely, “Movement in a class setting is great if you happen to be in preschool or in the very early elementary classes. But as classes begin to get more and more traditional, these realistic, practical, matter-of-fact students may be lost.”[1]

    Practical Tips for Biblical Studies Courses

                Baptists, and I am one, consider ourselves “people of the Book.” Those of us who teach the Bible to adults become very focused on literary techniques and verbal-based elements. Our teaching reflects this focus, as our primary resources is a book, rather than rocks in geology or chemicals in a chemistry class. If we are lazy, this is the only area from which we draw teaching techniques, thus leaving kinesthetic learning by the wayside. In order to encourage you towards incorporating kinesthetic learning in Biblical studies courses, I have compiled the following, which is like an annotated bibliography, but it consists of examples applicable to Biblical studies.

    Have your learners create an in-class drama or video presentation on the life of a biblical figure discussed in your class. Do your learners often have trouble understanding exactly how the Davidic monarchy fell apart? A dramatic video presenting the dissolution of the monarchy might go a long way in helping them put together who did what to whom and why.

    Divide up the history of your entire course so that each learner is assigned one piece (whether that’s the length of a single king’s reign, or a century, etc.) and has to create a detailed visual timeline of that period. For example, one learner creates a timeline for the life of David up until the murder of Uriah and abduction of Bathsheba while another creates a timeline for the life of David from the Uriah/Bathsheba episode until David’s death. When your students turn in their timelines, display them on the walls of your classroom such that they can look at the whole timeline, from beginning to end.

    Do you find it difficult to lecture on the Tabernacle or Temple and their rituals? Re-create one or both of these structures in the classroom. One way to do so is to simply tape off the room or another space such that you can walk from point to point while your students watch or walk with you. You get to show them exactly what is going on, and you get to make the subject more immediately relevant. Another way is to bring materials for the class to work together to build a model to scale.

    Here is an idea you can use with any subject. Have your learners create a quiz on the day’s subject. Have them model it after the way you typically write your own quizzes. Then, have them offer their questions aloud and have class discussion over them.

    Create a sign-up list for a “Visual Aid Assistant” with one opening per class session. Set up in the room early, connecting a laptop to the internet and projector. When that session’s “VAA” arrives, he or she is responsible for looking up your lecture topic, characters, books, places, tools, weapons, etc., on Google or Flickr and sliding that picture from the laptop over to the projector as a kind of running visual aid commentary.

    As I wrote about on previous posts, utilize gaming in your classroom to break up the lecture and give your students something to do. Have them rearrange the chairs around tables, have them get up and sit in a new place, then set up the game and let them have at it. Games should probably last up to 45 minutes, at the most.

    Be creative! Don’t rely on monotony, and don’t neglect kinesthetic learning. Do Google searches for creative/kinesthetic learning methods. Your classes will be better for it!

     

    [1] Marlene D. LeFever, Learning Styles (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook Publishing, 1995), 58.

  • When a Man Attacks, Or: Another Day Ending in ‘Y’

    By now you all will have heard of the shooting perpetrated near the University of California, Santa Barbara on Friday, May 23rd, 2014. The shooter was 22 years old, the son of a successful assistant director of major Hollywood films, and did not seem to want for anything materially. Except for the bodies of young women. According to his youtube video (now taken down), he was repeatedly rejected by women for romantic interest as well as by popular students as he sought friends. “Girls gave their affection and sex and love to other men but never to me.” His words drip with entitlement and anger.

    “Tomorrow is the day of retribution. The day in which I will have my revenge.” And “I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male.” This is just a taste of what his video was like. This young man was apparently so angry that he felt it his right to take ‘revenge’ on a crowd of unsuspecting women who had nothing to do with him.

    We could talk all day about sin and its consequences in the shooter’s heart and the lives of those murdered and injured women. We could talk about how the Bible says that violent force belongs to the government to keep order, and how Jesus is the last warrior at the end of time while we are called not to fight any more. But I think a conversation about what to do next is more helpful. How do we prevent another tragedy like this one?

    ENTITLEMENT & HUMILITY

    It is my belief that the first step to prevent another tragedy of this kind is for parents, ministers, and friends to train the children and young people around us to be humble; they must avoid entitlement. For good or for ill, every human being’s core values and problems begin at home as children. This means we need to provide solid teaching and encouragement to our children and young people we know.

    This also means we have to become humble people who carry no entitlement. I’m going to say it again. We have to put our entitlements to rest. When you read the word “we” in this blog, please understand that I am not trying to say “YOU” in a nice way. I am fully aware of my own feelings of entitlement and so I include myself here. I must put my entitlements to rest, and so must we all. If we put ourselves first, entitlement will breed in our hearts.

    In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 6, Jesus is recorded as saying, “43 For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”

    We will be known by our ‘fruit.’ In the case of this shooter, his fruit turned out spoiled. Rotten. Bitter. As a result of that, we know some of what was in his heart: deep, embittered entitlement. Humility is the antidote to entitlement, but we must work to become humble and stay that way.

    ANGER & PEACE

    “Anger, the inner arsonist, held a match to her brain.” -Jane Kenyon, “Portrait of a Figure Near Water.”

    If you were to ask my family and close friends what one of my main faults is, they will tell you that it’s my temper. I get angry easily, and often. It is a struggle I’ve fought for over a decade now. Anger can be more than a temporary emotion. It can be a bubbling force threatening to explode. As a child, I acted out by breaking things or hitting people. I’m not proud to say that. Maybe this violent young man from UCSB and I are a lot alike in that way. I don’t know.

    What I do know is that anger is a powerful force. It can be extremely destructive. I won’t go through more examples because we all know plenty of them. But anger can also be extremely constructive. When Jesus got angry, he cleared the Jerusalem temple so that the people who wanted to worship there could do so without being blocked by money traders or distracted by activities that weren’t about worship. When man sinned, God’s wrath began. But He sent Jesus to die in the place of sinners, that we who rebelled against Him might glorify Him and live with Him for eternity.

    Destructive anger brings violence and devastation. Destructive anger murders innocent young women while they are out having dinner with friends on the streets of Santa Barbara, celebrating the end of the school year.

    Constructive anger builds. Constructive anger creates peace. Constructive anger creates an opportunity for worship, and for being reconciled with God.

    We must teach our children and the young people we know that anger has to be channeled into constructive thoughts and actions. Along with that teaching, we must model such constructive anger. We all get angry. But we need to demonstrate to them how to channel it into something good.

    WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

    The way to avoid another tragedy like the one at UCSB is not better gun control. Humanity is violent, and the people who are willing to kill will find a way. How many mass knife attacks have occurred in China in the last 5 years? I have lost count.

    The way to avoid another tragedy like the one at UCSB is not necessarily better access to mental health professionals. Access is already available, and while such methods are helpful, they are not the only element in this equation.

    We must model and educate our children and the other young people we know about entitlement, humility, anger, and peace. This is and will be hard work. We may want to avoid saying something to our kids because it’s been a long day, or everyone has problems, so we think “Surely MY child wouldn’t do something like that.” But giving up on hard work like this results in tragedies like the victims of the Isla Vista shooting.

    If you’re on board with me so far, consider pointing our children and young people to the best example we have of humility and constructive anger. Jesus showed us what constructive anger looks like. He showed us humility. Jesus, the only innocent human being in history, died as a criminal so that criminals, you and I and our young people, might live as innocents.

    Do have any other suggestions for how we respond to this tragedy in order to prevent others like it in the future? What other steps can we take?

    Pray with me for the injured, the murdered victims, and their families. I do not know all their names as yet, but I will update this post as I learn them. Out of seven dead (six victims and the shooter), two confirmations of names I found are:

    Veronika Weiss, who was 19 years old.

    Katie Cooper, 22 years old.

    Christopher Ross Michael-Martinez, 20 years old.

  • Fun in the Classroom: How Dare You

    Some Problems

                You may not have noticed, but excellent teaching is hard work. In case that obvious statement needs clarification: adult learners get bored when you drone on simply lecturing for 3 hours a week. Even adult learners are limited to 25 minute attention spans before you lose them.[1] Lecture-only tendencies fail other learning styles. Lecture-only techniques typically require the learner to create his own motivation. It is like offering a spoonful of rice to a starving man. Sure, the rice is healthy, but with only this much to offer, his starvation continues. Utilizing games in the classroom is one way educators can vary their approach, reach more learning styles, and motivate learners. Herodotus wrote a history of the Greeks that recorded a certain period of famine and the populace’s response.

    “For some time the Lydians bore the affliction patiently, but finding that it did not pass away, they set to work to devise remedies for the evil. Various expedients were discovered by various persons; dice, and knuckle-bones, and ball, and all such games were invented… The plan adopted against the famine was to engage in games one day so entirely as not to feel any craving for food, and the next day to eat and abstain from games. In this way they passed eighteen years.”[2]

    So, during a time of literal famine, the general populace took to games to improve their lives. Educators can and should utilize games in teaching in order to reach more learners with better quality teaching.

    But What is the Value of Games in Education?

                Google phrases like “games for personal and social change,” “positive impact games,” “social reality games,” “serious games,” or “leveraging the play of the planet.” Visit websites like Game For Change, or Serious Games Interactive. No, go ahead. I can wait.

    The men and women working on these sites, programs, and initiatives are on the leading edge of utilizing gaming for education. Granted, the majority of what you will find in these searches are video games, and you should know that there is nothing wrong with that.

    Don’t be afraid. You don’t need to become a visual artist or programmer to use gaming in your classroom. Teachers have used games for millennia, and not just to educate children. Jane McGonigal rightly asserts that games will “satisfy our hunger to be challenged and rewarded, to be creative and successful, to be social and part of something larger than ourselves.”[3] You can use traditional classroom games that have been around for decades, board games, card games, simulation games, video games — the sky is the limit.

    Games empower the learners. They learn skills, they engage with the material, and – with some work – you can tie many game elements to your teaching material. With this increased investment, the learners will care more about your subject, which will fuel further learning.

    Examples for the Classroom

                Consider using a roleplaying game. Marlene D. LeFever gives a good, easy system for a game like this called “Guidance.”[4] In addition, more popular roleplaying systems are available, including Dungeons & Dragons,[5] Pathfinder, and Star Wars: Edge of the Empire. Roleplaying games can be carefully crafted to interact with specific material in your class, whether it is a psychology, sociology, counseling class, and more. It allows the learner to step into different shoes and gain new perspective on your topic.

    Consider developing your own. I, myself, have begun work on a simulation/strategy game that teaches the socio-economic context of the Roman Empire. Consider what you want to teach, the values of the best games (see McGonigal, above), and how you might go about doing that. Start building rules and test it until it’s where you want it to be!

    Finally, I suggest visiting your local game store to ask if they have anything that relates to your topic. In addition, consider searching BoardGameGeek.com for games related to your topic.

     

    [1] Freddy Cardoza, class lecture, “Teaching Adults,” Spring 2014.

    [2] George Rawlinson, trans., with Henry Rawlinson and J. G. WIlkinson, The History of Herodotus: A New English Version (New York: D. Appleton, 1861), 181-82. (http://archive.org/stream/historyofherodot01herouoft#page/182/mode/2up, accessed 4/26/2014.)

    [3] Jane McGonigal, Reality is Broken (New York: Penguin Press, 2011), 10.

    [4] Marlene D. LeFever, Creative Teaching Methods, Revised Edition (Colorado Springs: NexGen, 2004), 142-66. This classic book has several other examples worth examining, too. See also Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, and James D. Russell, Instructional Media, 2nd Edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985), 304-25.

    [5] If you’re wondering, no, the Devil did not create this game. Maybe another blog post for another time…

  • Incentivized Learning: Beyond the Grade

    Elizabeth Barkley succinctly asserts the following as almost a passing comment, “significant learning starts with the learner’s active engagement with a problem.”[1] Maybe you, the educator reading this blog entry, are the absolute best lecturer in the history of mankind. Maybe your paper assignments have the best written instructions since the IKEA assembly instructions guy got started. Maybe your students paid for a full seat in your class, but they only need the edge! Or, like me, you are one of the rest of us, educators looking to create engagement with your material in ways that will motivate them and stay with them when the semester is over.

    What I Mean by “Incentivized Learning”

                I do not propose merely a new way to think about teaching to all learning styles. Rather, I use the term “incentivized learning” to refer to methods employed by the educator to motivate learners to engage with specific material, whether that is one assignment, a part of a lecture, a module, or an entire course. Granted, you might think the incentive for learning the material is simply in the final grade. It’s nice to get an A, after all! But there is more to learning than a letter on a piece of paper, and that comes through dynamic learning techniques that engage with the learner in a way that motivates them and stays with them.

    Incentivized Learning is Valuable to Both Child and Adult Learners

                Teachers who focus on children have been utilizing incentivized learning for years beyond count. My 4 year old daughter attends an excellent preschool. Her teachers have a point-based system (using star stickers) to add new points for good behaviors or other learning. When the child has reached a certain number of stars, she can pick a prize out of The Prize Box. I’ve seen multiple children pull such an item from their backpacks at the end of the day to show their mommies or daddies, and they have such smiles on their faces! Not only are these children learning good behaviors such as cooperation, leading, and responsibility, they also have concretized incentives they can point to and say, for example, “I got this out of helping my friend calm down after she fell and hurt herself.”

    Adults, of course, are not always impressed by star stickers or used toys. The path of incentivized learning for adult learners seems daunting. “What could I use to incentivize this material without treating them like children?” I admit, it will be difficult to determine what works and what does not. But anything worth doing is usually difficult. I suggest looking to resources such as Barkley’s Collaborative Learning Techniques, Hin’s online article,[2] Svinicki and McKeachie’s McKeachie’s Teaching Tips,[3] or LeFever’s Creative Teaching Methods.[4]

    An Example of Incentivized Learning

                There are a variety of methods with which to incentivize learning. You may already use one or more. But part of aiming for excellence in teaching is to increase one’s repertoire, to put more tools in the tool belt. Ask around your faculty or with others who teach adult learners to see what variety of methods they use to motivate the learners to take to the material beyond threat of a bad grade. I suggest here one of many you should consider adapting to your own classes.

    If your students have trouble with analysis, or they need practice with analysis before they begin work on their major project for your class, consider Structured Problem Solving.[5] In theological education, you could use SPS as an opportunity for groups of students to analyze, e.g., a biblical passage. You provide them a problem and the series of steps to follow to try and solve it. At the end, they can present their solution (incentive: a chart or powerpoint they can use to teach someone else about this issue), debate their solutions with other groups (incentive: winning a debate), and receive positive feedback on the strengths of their assignment (incentive: increased emotional investment in the course).

    In my next blog, I dive deeper into another example of incentivized learning: fun and games in the classroom. Can they be used for education? Does it have to be “Monopoly”? Come back next week for more.

     

    [1] Elizabeth F. Barkley, K. Patricia Cross, and Claire Howell Major, Collaborative Learning Techniques, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.

    [2] Brian Lee Chin Hin, “Effect of Incentivized Online Activities On E-Learning,” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 28, edited by Halil I. Yalin, et al (2011), 211-16.

    [3] Marilla Svinicki and Wilbert J. McKeachie, eds., McKeachie’s Teaching Tips, 13th edition, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2011. See esp. chapters 14, 15, and 19-21.

    [4] Marlene D. LeFever, Creative Teaching Methods, Revised Edition, Colorado Springs: NexGen, 2004.

    [5] The name is borrowed from Barkley, et al, p. 188-92. See this reference for examples within two different disciplines of the same technique.

  • A Brief Thought on Inerrancy in the Classroom

    “Inerrancy” is a belief about the Christian Scriptures that many embrace, some question, and some outright reject. If you are a Bible teacher, surely all you need do is educate your learners on what the Bible is and says, right? There is a temptation to simplistic Bible teaching that models not only a low view of the Scriptures, but may also enable lazy reading in the teacher and the learners. David Dockery tells us, “[we] want to affirm that theology is foundational for the development of mature, thoughtful followers of Christ.”[1] By holding firm to the doctrine of inerrancy, the educator’s Bible teaching is appropriate and enhanced.

    Inerrancy Defined

                Several attempts at a definition of inerrancy have been put forward in various monographs, conferences, and theologies. The usual standard for understanding inerrancy is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It has “A Short Statement” in the beginning, which is quoted here as a definition for the term.

    1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

    2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

    3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

    4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

    5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.[2]

    An Objection to Inerrancy and Its Solution

                There are some who object to use a term about Scripture which does not originate in Scripture. It is true that the word “inerrant” does not appear in the Bible. However, the Bible speaks of itself in particular ways, as do a number of biblical figures, that treat it as what we call inerrant. For example, read any of the Gospels and you will see Jesus correct the Sadducees and the Pharisees because they did not know the Scriptures. His correction usually takes the form of quotes from or allusions to Old Testament texts. John tells us, “Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35, ESV). In addition, we already use many terms not in Scripture to describe God, for example. “Omnipotent” is not found in the Bible; yet, it accurately describes the God revealed in the Scriptures.

    Implications for the Classroom

                Strong theological convictions about core issues are necessary when teaching the Bible. They create a depth in the teacher and engender a hunger for study in the learner. A passionate teacher will always have a greater impact on his or her learners than an ambivalent one. An inerrantist’s dedication to read the Bible for what it says and to treat it as the authority we believe it to be creates precisely this infectious passion. But, does such a commitment stifle learning? Dockery puts it best in his book.

    Do these theological commitments stifle honest intellectual exploration? We do not think so. Our challenge is to preserve faithfully and pass on the Christian tradition while encouraging honest intellectual inquiry. We believe these two things can co-exist, even if in tension, in an enriching dialectical dependence.[3]

     

    [1] David S. Dockery, “Introduction – Faith and Learning: Foundational Commitments,” Faith and Learning: A Handbook for Christian Higher Education, David S. Dockery, ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 13.

    [2] The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html, accessed 4/25/2014). See also Rick and Shera Melick, “Teaching that Transforms” (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 20-30; Craig L. Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible?, Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2014.

    [3] Dockery, 12.

  • 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.

  • Interpreting the Bible: Part 1

    Regular readers of the Bible come to a question like this over and over: “What does that mean?” It’s a great question! It demonstrates humility, an interest in learning, and the desire to read the text as the author intended.

    This post is the first in a series on interpreting the Bible. Over the course of the series, I will discuss a number of different ‘tools’ or principles to keep in mind as you read the Bible. Some principles are more important than others, but they are all helpful.

    Today, I begin with a beginning – the foundational ideas surrounding meaning in the text. Is there a meaning to be found, or do I make it up as I go? The easy method is not necessarily the best one. The easy method is just to find whatever meaning you want in the text that you’re reading. Thus, you create the meaning regardless of the author and, really, regardless of whatever text you’re looking at. I have known people who used such an extreme example of this method that I didn’t believe them, at first. For example, I was told about a particular question this particular young man wanted answered by God, who said that he had prayed a long time for an answer and couldn’t figure it out. His solution was to pick up his Bible, close his eyes, and flip the pages from front to back and picking a random spot to place his finger. He then read starting at whatever verse it was until he came across a verse that could potentially be read as an answer to his question.

    !!!

    I hope, dear theoretical reader, that I don’t need to tell you what a bad method that is. Do you read e-mails like that? You’re wondering what your boss wants out of this project, so you close your eyes and randomly pick a sentence? Of course not. Do you randomly pick an item on your grocery list and shop only for that and whatever comes after it? You’ll miss everything that comes before! Or what about a love note from your wife or husband? Do you read that letter in whatever order you want, rather than top to bottom? Do you pick only one sentence, enjoy it, and put that letter away for tomorrow?

    Why would we read the Bible like that?

    When you receive a communication from someone, you try to discern their meaning in that e-mail, list, instruction, etc. The Bible should be treated no differently. “Aha!” you might say. “But how do can we know the meaning of long-dead authors located in two continents??” This is exactly the reason I begin this series on interpreting the Bible – I believe we can know their meaning, or, at least, make very good guesses.

    Although there are a number of good books out there about understanding the Bible, I am going to borrow the model published by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, professors at Ouchita Baptist University, in their book “Grasping God’s Word.” The model is a visual one, but I don’t own the copyright to their book, so I’ll convey the ideas with words! The Bible is information/communication from Their Town – that is, the “town” of the author(s) and the original biblical audience. We want to bring it to Our Town, to apply it in our contemporary contexts. The problem is that there is a River of Differences that separates each town, and it is filled with issues like the language(s) barrier, myriad cultural differences, the difference in time, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic status, genre understanding, and more. So we can’t just bring it straight from Their Town to Our Town. What we can do is build and cross the Principlizing Bridge, where – after understanding the text in Their Town – we carry the timeless principles from Their Town and apply them in Our Town.

    The first step in interpreting the Bible is to know what you are reading. Are you looking at one of the Gospels? An Old Testament prophetic book? An epistle? A history? An apocalypse?  If you are unsure what kind of book you are reading, start with the following chart.

    (Side note: just because you find the overall genre of the book you’re in does not mean you’re done! Sub-genre is a topic I’ll discuss in another post.)

    The genre of your text has a thorough influence on the text, creating and sometimes excluding options of meaning by virtue of its literary form. The genre used in the Bible you can see in the chart above, but a simpler list is thus: Gospel, Letter, History, Apocalypse, Narrative, Law, Poetry, Prophetic, and Wisdom. As the blog series goes on, I will discuss each genre in individual posts. Next time, however, is a discussion of the nitty-gritty of reading. Yes, dear theoretical reader, we will look at understanding sentences, paragraphs, and discourses! Guess what? Those things really are worth talking about!

    That’s it for this post, but I leave you with a question. What is your favorite biblical genre to read? Personally, I love the straight-forward reading in the letters of the New Testament, but Gospel and Narrative are tied for a close second.

  • Forbidden Island and Cooperative Gaming

    Last time I wrote a game review, I told you about Carcassonne, a competitive game that keeps everyone in the game until the very end (unlike Monopoly).

    This week, I’m going to describe a very different game. “Forbidden Island” is a cooperative game for 2-4 players and takes about 30 minutes to play. If you enjoy board games and Indiana Jones movies (though we must not speak of any Crystal Skulls…), you will like this game. In a nutshell, Forbidden Island is a game where a group of adventurers have come to the island to recover four elemental artifacts (they BELONG in a MUSEUM!), but the long-gone inhabitants booby-trapped the island: the whole island begins sinking!

    The only way to win the game is if everyone works together to recover all four artifacts and escape before the sea claims them. But there are PLENTY of ways to lose. In Forbidden Island, you don’t play against each other, you play against the game, which makes for a great experience and makes both victory and defeat so sweet! I think I’ve won the game as many times as I’ve lost. If you get better at it than my group, you can increase the difficulty of the game by increasing the rate of the island’s flood.

    You’ll enjoy the quality artwork on all the cards and island tokens, as well as the production value of the whole package (it comes in a tin box, and all the pieces are high quality). I plan to introduce my kids to Forbidden Island around age 7 or 8. It encourages group problem solving, cooperation, and critical thinking.

    Forbidden Island
    Forbidden Island

    Interested in a game designed by the same person, but harder and with higher stakes? Take a look at Pandemic. This game takes about 45 minutes, rather than 30, but it is another cooperative game. This time, you are a team from the Centers for Disease Control trying to save the world from a global pandemic consisting of four diseases (or more, if you get the expansion!). This game is MUCH more difficult, and I think I’ve won about 2 times out of every time I’ve tried it. But the game is just that much fun. I’m not mad that I’ve lost. I’m resolved to try again! I highly recommend it.

    Pandemic
    Pandemic

  • 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.