Michael Licona is a highly respected Christian apologist, and the author of the massively researched The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. He has come under intense fire from two other estimable scholars, Norman Geisler and Albert Mohler, for what they consider to be dangerous compromise in his interpretation of Matthew 27:52-53. It is a minor theme in a very long book, but they have brought it under major public scrutiny. Dr. Licona has interpreted the events in that Matthew passage as probably belonging to a figurative and eschatological genre: apocalyptic, in other words, as he clarified later in his response to Dr. Geisler. Apocalyptic literature is often intended not to be taken literally.* Drs. Geisler and Mohler say that in this context, such an interpretation represents a denial of biblical inerrancy.
I have high respect for all three men. Full disclosure: I am somewhat personally acquainted with Dr. Licona through mutual friends and a couple of passing conversations we’ve had at conferences. He has responded to both challenges. The first of those responses is undersigned by an impressive list of Christian scholars who support him in terms of the inerrancy question.
Though I cannot rehearse all the issues here, I need to note that The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy recognizes that figurative and non-literal apocalyptic interpretations are valid where they reflect the intent and genre of the text. I will also point out that Dr. Licona stated his view tentatively, using the language, “it seems to me that [this interpretation] is most plausible.” In his response to Dr. Geisler, he moderated his view to make it even more tentative. He is treating it as a question to be pursued, in other words.
It is question that is outside of my expertise: I don’t know whether Dr. Licona’s interpretation is more likely to be correct than Dr. Mohler’s and Dr. Geisler’s or not. I have questions of my own, though, about the process by which this is playing out:
1. Is the apocalyptic interpretation entirely impossible under the standard of biblical inerrancy, is it known to be entirely impossible under the standard of inerrancy, and is there reasonably strong consensus among trustworthy, inerrancy-affirming scholars that it is known to be entirely impossible under that standard?
Dr. Licona’s list of supporting academics would seem to demonstrate that such a consensus among Bible-believing scholars does not exist.
2. If the answer to any of the above is either no or we’re not sure, doesn’t that imply that there is at least some possibility that the apocalyptic interpretation might be better than the historic, non-apocalyptic interpretation?
3. If there is a possibility that the apocalyptic interpretation is better than the literal-historic interpretation, doesn’t it follow that there is an open question here that can be legitimately pursued?
That brings me to my questions about process.
4. If Bible-believing, inerrancy-affirming scholars can be subjected to such intense public pressure for raising issues that can legitimately be regarded as open for discussion, where does that leave biblical scholarship? Is it okay to pursue such questions or not? If not, why not?
5. Where does that leave the biblical scholars themselves who raise questions that should be open questions? Is this kind of public pressure helpful or fair to them and their families? Is it good for the church at large?
6. Given that a certain amount of disagreement is inevitable among students of the Bible, isn’t there a better way to approach it?
I close with a note regarding the discussion that might follow this blog post. We could talk about whether Dr. Licona’s interpretation is correct or not, and that’s certainly a good question, but it’s not the one I’ve raised. What I’ve brought up here, and what I hope we discuss, is whether or not it’s okay for scholars to raise interpretive questions like this one.
*The Bible is literally true in all that it affirms, but in the case of figurative language, what it affirms is to be understood figuratively rather than literally. The Psalms tell us that our God is a rock, and there is definite meaning being affirmed there that is really true, but it is not that God is primarily composed of silicates.
September 19th, 2011 | 9:47 am | #1
Tom Gilson:
“What I’ve brought up here, and what I hope we discuss, is whether or not it’s okay for scholars to raise interpretive questions like this one.”
Isn’t that what Licona has done? Mohler and Geisler have responded. Discussion to follow. Are you implying that Mohler and Geisler are challenging his right to raise interpretive questions like this? I don’t think they are, but rightly challenging the premise and presuppositions for not taking Matt. 27:52-53 as actual history.
The better question, in my opinion, is why Licona does not see this as actual history? Isn’t a cardinal doctrine of Christianity that at Christ’s coming again, dead saints will be raised bodily? So what’s so hard to believe about this miracle in Matt. 27, then the actual miracle of Christ’s resurrection in the first place?
September 19th, 2011 | 10:17 am | #2
Steve, there’s nothing wrong with the question you’re asking, it’s just that I’m asking another one.
Geisler (especially) is not encouraging discussion on this topic. He is actively discouraging the question from being brought forth. The same is arguably true for Mohler, though I think to a lesser extent.
September 19th, 2011 | 10:42 am | #3
Tom,
Geisler might not be encouraging discussion because he definitively thinks Licona is wrong on this. You’re wrong, I’m right, end of discussion, kind of thing. That you raise whether such interpretive questions can be asked is valid.
You asked:
“Where does that leave the biblical scholars themselves who raise questions that should be open questions? Is this kind of public pressure helpful or fair to them and their families? Is it good for the church at large?”
Disagreements among believers about what the Word of God actually says has gone on uninterrupted for millennia and is healthy. If you write publicly, you can and should be scrutinized publicly, especially on such a rather hot topic today of biblical inerrancy. Licona wasn’t writing on that topic, and probably had no idea that his comments about Matt. 27:52-53 would be seen in that light. However, when he makes a claim about two or three verses in an unarguably historical passage concerning Christ’s crucifixion, death, and resurrection, and says these are not to be taken as historical, and better seen as apocalyptic literature, then he should have seen the backwash coming.
September 19th, 2011 | 10:46 am | #4
Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t see where the Chicago Statement equates “Holy Scripture,” “Scripture,” or “the Bible” with the 66 books of the protestant Bible (or their original texts).
So, for any given book or portion of the protestant Bible, do we know that it is entirely impossible that it fails to constitute “Holy Scripture,” or that it doesn’t belong in the Bible?
September 19th, 2011 | 11:09 am | #5
RR, the Chicago Statement is definitely about the 66 books of the Protestant Bible (their original texts, that is). We have strong consensus among Bible-believing scholars that we have the correct canon. I think for these purposes that is quite adequate.
Steve, thanks for working with me on the idea of whether we can raise interpretive questions. Now, I understand that Geisler, Mohler, and you consider that passage in Matthew 27 to be “unarguably historical.” The problem is that some people think that it is arguable, and arguable within the parameters of inerrancy. The other problem is that Geisler (especially) and Mohler (to a lesser extent) have done more than “scrutinize publicly.” Read their statements and you’ll see there is more going on than just scrutiny of what Licona wrote.
September 19th, 2011 | 11:23 am | #6
A “strong consensus” that some claim is true strikes me as a lower standard than the standard requiring that the claim’s falsity be “entirely impossible,” or that we “know” its falsity to be entirely impossible.
If we’re interested in truth, why should we apply the lower standard to the more fundamental question?
September 19th, 2011 | 11:29 am | #7
RR, this is not a dispute between people who believe in the canon of Scripture (have strong reasons to regard it as true and authentic) and those who disbelieve in it, so I’m not seeing how your line of questioning is relevant. If there were some disagreement somewhere over the content of the canon, yours would be a good question. This is not that dispute.
September 19th, 2011 | 11:35 am | #8
I should add that the strong (actually overwhelming, unanimous) consensus we have among these scholars is that we know for certain that we have the correct canon. What you have described as the higher and lower standards both apply.
September 19th, 2011 | 11:52 am | #9
I take it, then, that you would say that these scholars know it to be entirely impossible that, for any one of the 66 books, a mistake has been made in including it within the Bible (as “Holy Scripture”). Is that right? (If so, this would just help me to better understand what you mean by “entirely impossible,” etc.)
September 19th, 2011 | 11:59 am | #10
RR, I’m not interested in pursuing this line of questions. This is a debate among people who understand and agree with biblical inerrancy as it is defined in the Chicago Statement.
September 19th, 2011 | 12:04 pm | #11
@ Tom #5,
Evangelicalism is under attack from within it’s own ranks. We’re eating each other alive on the question and authority of God’s Word. It is a subtle subterfuge fostered and fueled by none other than the Father of Lies himself, as has been ongoing since he first asked Eve, ‘Indeed, has God said…’
Mohler and Geisler see Licona’s reasoning on these few verses in Matt. 27 within this larger context. Thank God we have men like these who see the larger picture and raise questions and discussion with other brothers of the faith. Who do not cower and placate when the Word of God comes under attack. Who themselves vehemently disagree on another’s hermeneutic, and rightly challenge him on it.
September 19th, 2011 | 12:11 pm | #12
I pretty much agree with Steve Drake here.
Some scholars think a position is plausible and in conformity to the Chicago Statement; other scholars disagree and think the position is bad enough to be detracted. I think both parties are basically doing what they are supposed to be doing–scholarship, enforcement of boundaries, etc.–though they certainly could be doing it better.
I don’t see the attempt to get Licona to withdraw his position as inappropriate or dangerous; I do think that a lack of ecclesiastical accountability structures makes this incident generate more heat than light. For example, the danger of a false understanding of a particular Scripture passage is a danger to someone *out there* possibly on the Internet rather than a danger to a particular set of people who are in an authoritative community where people are known and which has pastoral processes to deal with such circumstances. I think that’s pretty helpful.
In this case, there’s a lot of words going back and forth but there isn’t really much Mohler or Geisler can do about Licona’s research except exercising their public voices to warn, rebuke, exhort, etc. which is fine but probably not enough in most situations.
In more direct response to Mr. Gilson’s excellent questions, I think some academic inquiries in some contexts and situations may be legitimately restrained by appropriate pastoral authorities for various reasons. I do not accept a laissez faire “all questions may be pursued and all opinions expressed by anyone at anytime in any situation and context” approach to academic freedom in biblical scholarship because that is imprudent and likely to lead to a lack of peace and therefore is unloving.
Is there space for inquiry into possibly dangerous theological speculations of various sorts? Yes, I think so, subject to various constraints relating to public visibility, pastoral obedience, good standing in a church, scholarly acumen, possibly a kind of ordination into that vocation, and other criteria determined by your church. In fact, this is precisely what happens today in the *church* we call the USA.
There are established authorities which determine which inquiries are acceptable and which are out of bounds and how much certain scholarship should be funded. You cannot expect to receive funding or an academic position within a public university for researching torture methods or how the Holocaust didn’t really happen or a philosophy about how white people don’t have any rights. There are bounds to scholarship in any society that are determined by the appropriate authorities… and that is okay and good.
Of course, this simply reveals the fundamental nature of every society as religious (sorry secularist liberals) since these boundaries, laws, etc. are–when you get to the root of them–fundamentally religious questions about ultimate value, meaning, purpose, etc. about things we are willing to kill or die for.
September 19th, 2011 | 12:25 pm | #13
I remember the first time I ran into this sort of thing. I was in a seminary class entitled the Life of Jesus. The professor (a prominent, deeply respected, eminently faithful, New Testament scholar) made a case for his understanding of the nature and function of miracles in the earthly ministry of Jesus. He believed and stated categorically that Jesus’ miracles “strengthen or affirm (nascent) faith, and are never used as simple demonstrations of power or simply to “create faith”. I liked that understanding and it was helpful to me as an interpretive framework, but I was curious about where the “nature miracles” (Jesus walking on water for eg) fit in. I asked the professor after class and he said “well I’d never publish this, but I believe that the walking on the water account is a post resurrection narrative placed back earlier in the text by a redactor….”
It blew my mind. Purely speculative, of course, but the sort of thing we are discussing here. Does such an interpretive gloss have a place? Should I have “reported” this professor to the SBL or the ETS?
I am not sure that allowing Norm Geisler and Al Mohler to become the inerrantist watchdogs of evangelical Biblical studies is the best course here. Before my friend Steve D. gets after me, let me say that I am not questioning the value of having “canaries in the coal mine”, but rather the,somewhat unfortunate tendency of some of the folks in the inerrantist camp to shoot first and ask no questions later. There are a differences between honest dissent, careful correction, and flat-out suppression. In the spirit if our Lord we do well to remember that heresy is one thing and honest interpretive differences quite another.
September 19th, 2011 | 1:08 pm | #14
david c, I think your anecdote describes a relatively common occurrence in the academy in general (whether in theology, biblical scholarship, biology, history, etc.) and I would wager in the experience of most people at some point in their lives.
Many people have reservations about particular points in some overarching body of knowledge they have (Reformed theology, evolution, Civil War history, biographies of famous people, etc.). Most communities I am aware of (including much of academia, most churches, etc.) allow for privately-held exceptions to the general consensus. Publishing or public teaching of such private exceptions is, on the other hand, mostly discouraged though informal and formal means or even prohibited with the implicit or explicit threat of expulsion. See “Expelled” for an example of this in action with regard to the consensus on evolution (I explicitly do not make claims in favor or opposed to evolution; my point is about enforcing boundaries and it stands regardless). Again, in my opinion, such enforcement activity–in principle apart from particular executions–is necessary, proper and good.
So I don’t think you should have reported your teacher to SBL or ETS for his private explanation… but for a reason, which is because such a practice is probably within legitimate bounds. Depending on what those authorities have defined as acceptable for their members in the membership covenant, though, you could have had the responsibility to report him if he taught his position or published it. (Again, depending on whether or not those groups care and what obligations he has to them, you have to them, etc.)
I think I understand what you mean when you say that heresy and honest interpretive differences are different. To clarify, I am not sure that honesty has much to do with it since there are honest heretics; what you probably mean is that there are interpretive differences that are within the acceptable bounds of orthodoxy (and therefore are not heresy) which may come from honest thinking. I might suggest, however, that the delineation between heresy (or teaching dangerous enough to merit rebuke) and acceptable interpretive difference is not agreed upon by everyone; it is not as simple as you make it out to be in your appeal to our Lord’s spirit (praise be to Him). Whether we are aware of it or not, we rely on particular authorities to make those boundaries. Those boundaries can be incorrect, of course (I am no relativist), but they nonetheless must be made and enforced in love despite the fact that authorities could be (and often are) wrong.
September 19th, 2011 | 1:49 pm | #15
Albert,
We are much in agreement here and I apologize for my lack of clarity. We agree (as Tod G. does, I think) that the discussion should be about boundary setting — discerning the difference between the heretical and the (for lack of a better term) merely speculative.
What concerns me, however, is the tendency of some to behave as spokesmen for all. I don’t think that the lay Christian community, nor the larger context of secular society is served well by the very public airing of these sorts of “inside baseball” arguments. THAT is where I mean my appeal to the Spirit to apply. Did Mohler and Geisler approach Licona privately with this concern? Did they seek to discuss with him their own understanding of appropriate interpretive parameters? Or was it a case of heresy hunting for the sake of notoriety or making ones bones as a paragon of orthodoxy? I don’t know enough to know the answer to that, but I am concerned that it may be closer to the latter than the former.
September 19th, 2011 | 2:00 pm | #16
Pastor C.,
“I am not sure that allowing Norm Geisler and Al Mohler to become the inerrantist watchdogs of evangelical Biblical studies is the best course here.”
And no one is claiming that they are, yet it’s interesting that you would use this turn of phrase as a subtle way to imply that they are doing just that. It’s funny how words can subtly be used to introduce ideas heretofore never spoken.
Pastor C said:
but rather the,somewhat unfortunate tendency of some of the folks in the inerrantist camp to shoot first and ask no questions later.
You do not claim to be an inerrantist as a pastor of a fairly large church and within a conservative denomination such as the PCA, in a large metropolitan city of the southern U.S.? Now maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, but let me ask you in all seriousness, are you an inerrantist or not? Or maybe you would prefer to clarify that terminology?
September 19th, 2011 | 2:13 pm | #17
David C,
I believe Norm Geisler did write a private letter to Mike Licona, but Licona has been extremely busy getting things ready for his trip to South Africa and his two debates. Licona has made on open response to both Geisler and Mohler on his Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-licona/the-devil-is-indeed-in-the-details-and-we-do-well-not-to-ignore-them-a-brief-res/160295627387705
In his defense he writes, “Their judgment that an incompatibility exists between the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and interpreting Matthew’s raised saints at Jesus’ -death as apocalyptic symbols—or even to consider this interpretation as a viable way of understanding what Matthew was communicating (which is my present position)—without engaging in a thorough and sophisticated discussion of the milieu in which Matthew wrote is quite premature.”
This goes back to Tom’s original question of process as well as to you question of heresy hunting, or even grand standing. However, Mike handles it well in his post when he says, “The charge that I have “dehistoricized” the text is also problematic, since it likewise presupposes that Matthew intended the raised saints to be understood as historical. But what if he intended for them to be understood as apocalyptic symbols? It would then be misguided to “historicize” them.”
Mike has also sought out a possible solution. “I am grateful to the Southeastern Theological Review for their invitation to participate in a roundtable discussion on the meaning of this text and whether the solution I proposed in my recent book is compatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. It is their desire to publish that discussion within the next 60 days.”
September 19th, 2011 | 2:33 pm | #18
david c, I see what you mean and agree a private discussion would have been a good first step in this engagement.
September 19th, 2011 | 2:54 pm | #19
Steve,
First of all — I am nowhere near the person you assume I am. I am the pastor of a (very) small, rural, PCUSA congregation. You got the “Southern” part (North Carolina) right and I AM an inerrantist if by that we can agree that it means “The Bible (in its original manuscripts) is true and without error in matters of faith and practice…”
As for my assertion about Mohler and Geisler — I stand by it. Al Mohler has never been elected to be Pope of Evangelicalism and neither has Norm Geisler. You say they are not trying to be watchdogs and perhaps they aren’t. But why then does Mohler constantly use the pronoun “we” throughout his critique of Licona? And when Mohler raises the parallel with Gundry (who was expelled from the ETS in 1983) he is clearly inviting discussion about whether or not Licona should be considered a candidate for the same, is he not?
All this is made even more curious by his appeal to Geisler’s membership in the ETS “for many years”. But Geisler quit the ETS in 2003 so….
Look Steve, despite how it might sound in the moment, I respect and admire all of the men in this discussion. Each stands as a leading figure in Christian academic circles and each reminds us that the picture of evangelicals as “poor, uneducated, and easily led” could not be farther from the truth. I am well aware that we need watchdogs, canaries in the coal mine, etc. In this case however, I simply don’t agree that what Dr. Licona has done is so far out of bounds. And it really bothers me that this has had to go on “out in the open” so to speak.
September 19th, 2011 | 3:21 pm | #20
Pastor C.,
Forgive my faux pas, my friend. It seems I have jumped to some unwarranted conclusions about you. That said, I will try to be more circumspect now that you are not who I had assumed you to be. I appreciate your input Pastor, and the dialog we have had in the past, looking forward to more of the same in the future.
In regards to this issue coming ‘out in the open’, if seen in light of my earlier comments about the larger context, I affirm once again the solvency and necessity of the dialog between Licona, Geisler, and Mohler. on this crucial issue. Let me ask you a question: In looking at the whole of Matthew 27, what other verses besides 52-53 are not to be seen as historical?
September 19th, 2011 | 4:42 pm | #21
Steve,
No apology necessary. Assumptions are easy to make when all one has is a combox….
Now let me clarify what I think is a misapprehension on your part as to what I am saying. I am not concerned with the fact that there is a disagreement amongst these estimable folk — “iron sharpens iron” and all that.
No, what concerns me is the rather what I perceive as the attitude behind the way the argument has been approached and the very public nature of it. Now, admittedly I speak in some ignorance about this, but I really do think that the whole thing could have (and to my mind should have) gotten off on a much better footing if it had not been handled with blog entries, facebook posts and open letters. And second, I have a concern about the appearance of governing (or judicial?) authority where none has been granted. The opinions of Al Mohler and Norm Geisler do not (for me) constitute some sort of Protestant magisterium. You will perhaps say that they are not claiming to speak for anyone but themselves but to my mind that is not how their comments read…
Less public, more charitable, more collegial and consultative, as befits brothers in Christ would have been my preferred idea of how this should have happened. But it ddin’t and so there we are.
As for your question about Matthew 27. You mistake my defense of the reasonableness of allowing Licona to posit the interpretation as he does with an agreement with the assertion itself. It isn’t. I have always found verses 52 and 53 to be odd, and I certainly would not want to formulate some sort of dogmatic teaching based on them. But I am in no position (nor do I have any inclination) to deny the historicity of the narrative. Licona’s approach is a creative and thought provoking one, but seems (given the context) something of a stretch — at least at first glance.
September 19th, 2011 | 5:15 pm | #22
Pastor C.,
No, what concerns me is the rather what I perceive as the attitude behind the way the argument has been approached and the very public nature of it. Now, admittedly I speak in some ignorance about this,”
Yes, of course. When an interpretation of the Word of God is challenged by the likes of Geisler and Mohler, or any of their inclination, the liberal theologian will call ‘foul’, rant and rave about whether this should have been dealt with ‘in-house’, and decry the unfairness of it all. Yada, yada, yada. Same song, different verse.
“The opinions of Al Mohler and Norm Geisler do not (for me) constitute some sort of Protestant magisterium.”
One doth protest too much, pastor. No one is claiming that they are. Yet, their critique does merit consideration I think, and thank God we have an open society where such critique can be aired publicly for all us non-scholars to prattle on about.
“You mistake my defense of the reasonableness of allowing Licona to posit the interpretation as he does with an agreement with the assertion itself. It isn’t. I have always found verses 52 and 53 to be odd, and I certainly would not want to formulate some sort of dogmatic teaching based on them. But I am in no position (nor do I have any inclination) to deny the historicity of the narrative.”
Nice to know that you find these verses ‘odd’, yet have no inclination to deny the historicity of the account by Matthew. Far more humbly than Licona has done, wouldn’t you say?
September 19th, 2011 | 5:44 pm | #23
Steve,
I guess I am a little confused. Who’s the “liberal theologian” here? Licona? Me? Me as a liberal is too funny to contemplate. And Licona? Well apparently you didn’t read all of Mohler’s blog post. He is positively effusive in his praise for Licona’s work as a whole. No “liberals calling foul or ranting and raving” here brother. Not one.
As for my “protesting too much” how so? I’ll ask again just to be clear — from whence do Geisler and Mohler get the authority to be publicly lecturing Licona on the orthodoxy of inerrancy? (Something he affirms unequivocally). Who put two Southern Baptist scholars in charge of Orthodox Biblical interpretation for all of Evangelicalism?
My sense is that we have probably reached something of an impasse here, which is why I don’t like these discussions to begin with. What we are discussing, essentially, are the limits of freedom. That quickly becomes a very complicated question, given the tensions between notions of “freedom of inquiry” “academic freedom” and “Christian freedom”. It is made nigh unto impossible when we speak of Evangelicalism as though it were some kind of church or denomination with a discernible polity. So perhaps we ought to just leave it there?
September 19th, 2011 | 5:56 pm | #24
Pastor C.,
No impasse brother, just a difference of opinion. An opinion rightly dissected and analyzed. BFF forever, right?
September 19th, 2011 | 6:01 pm | #25
You betcha Steve, bff ;)
By the way, it may tickle you to know that one guy in my congregation tells me that he is always telling the folks in his home church “he’s the most Southern Baptist Presbyterian you’ll ever hear…”
September 19th, 2011 | 6:28 pm | #26
Pastor C.,
LOL. Isn’t that an oxymoron?
September 19th, 2011 | 6:50 pm | #27
From what I know about Geisler, he has penchant for making mountains out of molehills. Is it possible to address this issue from a both/and, rather than an either/or, perspective? Rather than debating whether the passage in question is either historical or apocalyptic, consider the possibility that it is both historical and apocalyptic. Ours is a faith rooted in history and revealed in history and through historical events. The resurrection of Jesus is itself an apocalyptic/eschatological event taking place within history, revealing God’s will for the outcome of history. The resurrection of the saints, concurrent with the death of Jesus and the ripping of the temple curtain, can be understood much the same way. It is an actual historical event with major apocalyptic/eschatological implications. Therefore, Matthew describes it by employing apocalyptic/eschatological language.
September 19th, 2011 | 6:59 pm | #28
James,
What are the indicators in Matthew 27 that would lead you to believe that the passage is apocalyptic? I’m asking you to start from verse 1 and work your way through to verse 66, and reason your way to an understanding that verses 52-53 do not mean what they seem to mean. Please respond.
September 19th, 2011 | 7:21 pm | #29
Steve,
I’m not sure why you would think that since I say the passage is apocalyptic that somehow I don’t believe it means what it seems to mean. It means exactly what it says. What happened, happened. The language Matthew employs to describe what happened is the same apocalyptic language used by, among others, Ezekiel and Daniel to describe God’s ultimate act of restoration. In using this language, it seems clear to me that Matthew means to say that, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, that which had been “veiled” has now been “unveiled.” That is precisely what an “apocalypse” is.
September 19th, 2011 | 7:30 pm | #30
James,
You seem to be confusing genre’s. Matthew 27 is not apocalyptic in the same way and the same sense as Ezekiel and Daniel. My question still stands, what verse or verses in Matthew 27 is not to be taken as historical narrative in describing the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus our Lord?
September 19th, 2011 | 7:51 pm | #31
“My question still stands, what verse or verses in Matthew 27 is not to be taken as historical narrative in describing the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus our Lord?”
It is really unfortunate that some who call themselves “inerrantists” have created a false dichotomy between “apocalyptic” and “historical” literature. Nothing in Matthew 27 is not historical. It is all an actual historical account of the actual historical events surrounding the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The language of apocalyptic is used, however, to drive home the eschatological significance of these events (or, better stated, this one definitive event in several acts). History and apocalypse are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complementary.
September 19th, 2011 | 8:07 pm | #32
James,
What is it about the crucifixion, death and burial, and resurrection of Christ that is apocalyptic? You are confusing the terms.
September 19th, 2011 | 8:25 pm | #33
Steve,
Can you name one other event in history that is a more definitive revelation (apocalypse) of the plan and purpose of God than the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?
I certainly can’t.
September 19th, 2011 | 8:40 pm | #34
Goodness gracious, Steve. You asked James,
Why start with verse 1? The chapter divisions aren’t in the canon. Why not start at the beginning of chapter 26, or at Jesus’ arrival at Jerusalem in chapter 21? And why stop at verse 66? The book doesn’t close until the end of the next chapter. As long as you’re instructing him in how to demonstrate his point, why choose such arbitrary divisions? Maybe he should exegete two, three, maybe eight chapters for you.
And “please respond,” even though it has the word “please” in it, seems rather imperious, doesn’t it?
September 20th, 2011 | 8:12 am | #35
James,
“Can you name one other event in history that is a more definitive revelation (apocalypse) of the plan and purpose of God than the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? I certainly can’t.”
You’re equivocating. That’s not how Licona is using the term in his interpretation of Matt. 27:52-53.
Tom,
You’re sandbagging. The point of the process you wish to direct our attention to brings in all the linguistic and semantic tools of the trade to understand the writer’s intent. If you and Licona want to take two verses out of an historical narrative about Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, and claim that these two verses out of Chapter 27 are to be understood ‘apocalyptically’ and not historically, thus denying what seems to be a miracle, then where else do you want to compromise? The feeding of the 5000? The healing of the blind man in John 9? The healing of the woman who touched his cloak and Jairus’ daughter raised back to life in Luke 8?
Goodness gracious Tom, where do you draw the line? Where do you accept what is miraculous and what is not? This picking and choosing is nothing but arbitrariness.
September 20th, 2011 | 8:26 am | #36
Steve,
Of course he isn’t using it that way, and that is part of the problem. Both Licona and his critics are operating under the false dichotomy between historical and apocalyptic. As I said before, the two need not be mutually exclusive.
September 20th, 2011 | 9:27 am | #37
I’m not sandbagging, Steve. You have misunderstood what I wrote about the process. You have misunderstood what I wrote about Matthew 27:52-53. And you are charging me with some kind of underhandedness (“sandbagging,” “arbitrariness,” and possibly also the denial of Biblical miracles) based on your misunderstanding. That’s wrong, Steve.
September 20th, 2011 | 9:33 am | #38
Something can be both historical and apocalyptic, in the sense of what George Eldon Ladd and others call “the presence of the future:” the in-breaking of the future into the past or the present so that we can see the apocalyptic reality that is to come before the end has actually occurred. In other words, “historical” and “apocalyptic” are compatible categories. An event can be both historical and apocalyptic simultaneously. Further, apocalyptic is historical; its just the historical in its future mode. It’s looking forward to historical events — events in space and time –rather than looking at space/time events exclusively in the past.
September 20th, 2011 | 9:38 am | #39
Let me try to make my position clear again for you, Steve. My post was not about the proper interpretation of the Matthew passage. It was about the process by which men of God should (and should not) confront other men of God when they think the other men of God have erred in their interpretations. It’s fine that Mohler and Geisler would call him out on an error if they see one. What I object to is that they went further than they needed to, and said unequivocally that Licona’s error represented a denial of biblical inerrancy, when there is reason to think the question might be an open one under biblical inerrancy standards. (I know you disagree, but better scholars than you and me have said they think it is at least an ask-able question.)
And I object to the public manner in which they criticized Licona.
I did not (I repeat) deny the historicity of the New Testament. I didn’t even bring it up for discussion. Please read the end of the original post once again.
September 20th, 2011 | 11:47 am | #40
Tom is exactly correct. The issue is hermeneutical. One can hold to Licona’s understanding of the text without denying either inspiration or inerrancy.
September 20th, 2011 | 11:52 am | #41
Tom,
I think this discussion illustrates why some of us in the wider Christian community would like to think of ourselves as evangelicals and inerrantists but shy away from the terms because of the odious tactics of those who have appointed themselves as arbiters of what is and is not acceptable under some very narrow standards of interpretation.
September 20th, 2011 | 1:42 pm | #42
Hi guys,
I feel more heat here than necessary, but still there are some very good comments overall.
Michael Bauman’s #38 comment is especially excellent and should be noted with the caveat that (as far as I know) though apocalyptic literature generally is oriented toward the future, it can be used to reveal something deeper about the present and past.
Steve Drake is right that Licona meant “apocalyptic symbol” for Matthew 27: 52-53 to indicate a non-historical revealing, though he also admits (due to recent research) the possibility of it being a literally historical and apocalyptic description
(bold mine)
As a side note, it would be useful to remind readers of the point of apocalyptic literature. One major purpose of it is to reveal to our imagination the true nature of what has become to us “ordinary” reality. As Christians, because we understand the true nature of reality to be inextricably tied to its eschatological future in Christ, apocalypse is rightly associated primarily with the future. But apocalyptic literature can be revelatory with respect to the present and past as well because the future has broken into the past and present in the resurrected Christ, and for the pastoral reason that God’s present and past workings can become obscured to us.
It is through apocalyptic literature’s re-framing and use of strange or highly sensory imagery that it re-vivifies our imagination which so easily loses a heart-level sense of God’s working within history (past, present and future). Frequently (especially in a disenchanted world), it takes such a refreshing of our imagination to “see anew” the reality of God’s presence in history and our lives. Literally historical descriptions can work as apocalypse (e.g. miracles and attendant language) as can non-strictly historical descriptions (likely Revelation).
peace and patience,
September 20th, 2011 | 2:30 pm | #43
Evangelicals will never settle this hermeneutical delierium
As long as the voices with the megaphones are the default magisterium
September 20th, 2011 | 3:27 pm | #44
“Evangelicals will never settle this hermeneutical delierium As long as the voices with the megaphones are the default magisterium”
Amen. I had forgotten how frustrating it was to argue with people who have all the answers but keep asking irrelevant questions.
September 20th, 2011 | 3:34 pm | #45
So, Francis – how would your magisterium handle this? And how would one find out?
September 20th, 2011 | 10:54 pm | #46
Sadly, and realistically, there are no trouble-free zones in this debate, no slam-dunks. There are trade-offs instead. In my view, it’s better to endure the interpretive pluralism of Protestantism than the enforced errors of the magisterium.
September 21st, 2011 | 4:10 am | #47
“In my view, it’s better to endure the interpretive pluralism of Protestantism than the enforced errors of the magisterium.”
Observations:
o “Enforcement” appears to be lacking at times.
o Has Dr. Beckwith ever noticed Catholic clergy practicing interpretive pluralism of formal Magisterial doctrine?
———
With regards to Authorial Intent, suppose Matthew 27:52-53 was a historical event and both the Divine Author and His inspired human author Matthew intended people to understand it as a historical event. And that whether it had apocalyptic underpinnings or aspects to this factual event was subsidiary or secondary to the intent of the Author that it be known and understood as a historical event.
Granting this, if people were later led to believe that Matthew 27:52-53 was a non-historical event, what is the degree of damage that’s being done to Authorial intent, and more importantly, to the souls of people who then use the arguments of de-historicization to de-historicize other parts of the Bible that were meant to be understood as history?
September 21st, 2011 | 6:26 am | #48
TUAD, I think that’s a great question (the one you closed with) and exactly the one that should be asked, or at least one of the most important questions that should be asked. You have put your finger on a crucial interpretive issue. I only wish Geisler and Mohler had pulled Licona aside (so to speak) and asked him that question, rather than doing it the way they did; for then they would have not only been able to make their hermeneutical point, they would have respected the ability and requirement of students of the Word to be able to ask questions and to discuss them, at least within limits such as I tried to suggest in the original post.
September 21st, 2011 | 9:25 am | #49
@Tom#37,
Perhaps ‘sandbagging’ was not the correct term to use, and no, I’m not charging you with underhandedness. Here’s what you said in the original post, and dovetails with other things you’ve said and written concerning Biblical themes you wish to remain tentative about:
“It is question that is outside of my expertise: I don’t know whether Dr. Licona’s interpretation is more likely to be correct than Dr. Mohler’s and Dr. Geisler’s or not.”
This statement above is not clear to me, because it follows your paragraph where you are referring to Licona’s statement where he says (his apocalyptic, non-historical) interpretation seems most plausible to him . Are you referring to Licona’s actual statement about Matt. 27:52-53, or to the broader question of whether his view can be considered within the bounds of inerrancy, in your statement above?
If the latter, then this is what the critique by Geisler and Mohler have engendered debate on, a debate that within the larger context of the renewed attack on the authority of the Word of God, is proper and healthy. If the former, then my questions about where you want to draw the line on what is miraculous and what is not, and the implied ‘I don’t need to know right now’, or ‘I’ll wait to render my opinion to some future time when all the experts weigh in”, seems inconsistent and arbitrary with all other opinions you do want to come down in favor of or against, and speaks, in my opinion, to a duality of epistemology. Yes, I’m being somewhat critical here brother. I wish we could sit down together over a cup of coffee or an ice cold beer face to face and talk about these things. So, go ahead, and tell me I’ve got it all wrong, but please know I pray only the best for you.
September 21st, 2011 | 11:40 am | #50
Steve, you and I disagree on whether Licona’s statement is clearly definable as an attack on the authority of the Word of God, and on whether the debate is proper and healthy in the manner it is being handled. How about if we leave it at that?
September 21st, 2011 | 6:12 pm | #51
Tom,
We disagree on more than just that, but suffice it to say, in terms of this present discussion: we are far removed from compatibility on the understanding of how the Word of God is under attack from within the ranks of Evangelicalism, by supposedly conservative evangelical scholars, bewitched by scholastic colleagues and supposedly higher critics of Biblical studies, who wanting to have their ears tickled, accumulate teachers according to their own desires, turning their ears away from the truth, and turning aside to myths.
September 21st, 2011 | 6:28 pm | #52
Yes, we are far from agreement on some things. Not everything, not the main things, but definitely some things.
September 21st, 2011 | 6:32 pm | #53
And I would still suggest that we leave it at that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact