Christen brauchen Fleisch

I had a brief exchange with a member of my church the other day about the fact that Christians can grow in their faith, that there is a distinction between young and mature Christians, and that this growth involves intellectual growth, a better grasp of theology. My friend didn't quite understand, especially in regard to a quote from Heb 5:12 about "milk" and "meat" that I e-mailed him. For him, the gospel is actually very simple and he cites John 1:14 as evidence. Not only is this verse easy to grasp, he says, what more could we possibly need to know? He is a new Christian. Here is my attempt per Email to clarify the issue. Please do tell me where I'm going wrong! (And feel free to correct my imperfect German.)

Bezüglich Heb 5,12. Zuerst würde ich gerne darauf hinweisen, dass der Hebräerbrief an Christen gerichtet ist. Also Menschen, die sich schon für Jesus entschieden haben. Sie werden um ihres Glaubens Willen verfolgt und laufen Gefahr, dieses Glauben zu leugnen. Dem Autor des Briefes geht es darum, ihnen zu beweisen, wie gut sie es in Jesus haben. Also: es gibt mehr als das, was sie gedacht haben. Dieses "Mehr" ist der Inhalt des Briefes und sollte ihnen helfen, in ihrem Glauben im Angesicht Verfolgung zu beharren. Im direkten Zusammenhang von Heb 5, 12, zum Beispiel, geht es darum dass Jesus nicht nur zu uns gesandt wurde, dass er lebte, starb, und auferstanden ist, sondern auch, dass er jetzt zur rechten des Vaters sitzt und für uns betet. Das ist ein Beispiel für das "Fleisch," was die Hebräer noch nicht begriffen haben. Vielleicht könnte man sagen, dass Milch genug ist für jemand der sich zum ersten Mal für Jesus begeistert ist (junge Christen sind in der Regel super begeistert), wenn es aber schwer wird, braucht man mehr Eiweiß. Dafür braucht man eine tiefere Theologie. Was man glaubt hat Einfluss darauf, wie man lebt, was man hofft usw. Hier ist ein Zitat zu Heb 5, 11 aus einem englischen Kommentar:

The "milk" of the Word refers to what Jesus Christ did on earth—His birth, life, teaching, death, burial, and resurrection. The "meat" of the Word refers to what Jesus Christ is now doing in heaven. [nach Heb 5, 12, z.B.] We begin the Christian life on the basis of His finished work on earth. We grow in the Christian life on the basis of His unfinished work in heaven.

Of course, even the maturest adult never outgrows milk. As believers, we can still learn much from our Lord’s work on earth. But we must not stop there! We must make spiritual progress, and we can do this only if we learn about Christ’s priestly ministry for us in heaven. (See Heb. 13:20–21 for a summary of what the Lord wants to do for His people now.)

Dies ist nur ein Teilantwort auf deine Frage, "Was ist Fleisch"? Der Verfasser des Briefes gibt weitere Beispiele in den darauf folgenden Versen.

Hilft das? Es geht nicht darum, dass wenn man im Glauben wächst man entdeckt das alles doch nicht so ist, wie man gedacht hat (obwohl das zum Teil durchaus passiert; wir projezieren immer unsere eigenen Bedürfnisse auf Gott). Es geht darum, dass das Evangelium sehr umfassend ist (guck mal, wie groß, vielfältig, und manchmal schwierig die Bibel ist!). Das Leben ist eine Herausforderung, und manchmal braucht man mehr um überstehen zu können. Ich profitiere sehr momentan, z.B., von der Gedanke, dass "Himmel" letzendlich die Vollendung dieser Schöpfung ist, und nicht ihre Abschaffung durch eine unkörperliche Wirklichkeit.

Dazu würde ich sagen, dass es nicht nur mehr gibt, im Sinne von extra Information oder einem größeren Zusammenhang. Es gibt auch mehr im Sinne von einer Tiefendimension. Etwas, was zuerst einfacht erscheint, kann Vieles vergebergen. Lass uns deine Bibelzitat angucken:

14 Das Wort wurde Mensch und lebte unter uns. Wir selbst haben seine göttliche Herrlichkeit gesehen, wie sie Gott nur seinem einzigen Sohn gibt. In ihm sind Gottes vergebende Liebe und Treue zu uns gekommen.

Dieser Text ist für mich überhaupt nicht einfach. Ein Paar Beispielfragen: Was war das Wort bevor es Mensch wurde? Wieso musste es Fleisch werden? Und war es vorher ein "es" oder schon immer ein "er"? Und wie kann ein Mensch ein "Wort" sein? Und wie sieht ein Wort aus bevor es/er Mensch wird? Und was hat Fleischwerdeung mit Liebe zu tun (geschweige denn Treue)? Und welche Herrlichkeit wurde von Johannes gesehen? Ich dachte Jesus wäre nur ein Zimmerman. Oder ist das genau seine Herrlichkeit? Oder war es vielleicht seine Verklärung? Und wieso durfte Johannes das sehen aber ich nicht? Ist das Fair, dass ich von einem Zeugniss abhängig bin, ohne selbst die Herrlichkeit Jesu sehen zu dürfen? Und wieso ist das Wort/der Mensch ein Sohn? Wieso nicht Tochter, oder etwas Anderes? Ist das bedeutsam? Was hat "Vergebung" mit "Inkarnation" zu tun? Ich dachte, dass Vergebung am Kreuz stattgefunden hat und nicht beim Geburt. Und wenn diese vergebende Liebe damals gekommen ist, was hat das mit heute zu tun? Kommt er immer noch? Aber wenn ja, er kommt gewiss nicht auf der selben Art und Weise wie damals, weil er nicht mehr "unter uns" lebt. Zumindest nicht als Mensch - nur in seinem Geist (sein Vertreter). Wie im Hebräerbrief steht, Jesus ist eigentlich nicht mehr hier, er ist da, und wir warten auf ihn. Also, Johannes freut sich, dass Jesus gekommen ist, aber wir warten immer noch?

Wie du geschrieben hast, Joh 1, 12 ist eigentlich doch einfach. Ein Mensch lernt Gott in Jesus kennen und gibt ihm sein Leben aus Dankbarkeit. Aber wie in menschlichen Beziehung, ist dieser Schritt nur ein Anfang. Man muss weiter gehen und diese Person kennelernen, diese Person in seiner Gesamntheit, und das heißt seine Identität als Gott und Gesalbter Israels, als eine Antwort auf unseres Flehen, als ein Teil von eines umfassenden Heilsplans. Du hast sicherlich den Spruch gehört: die Bibel ist flach genug, dass ein Baby dadrin spielen kann, aber tief genug, dass ein Elefant dadrin ertinken kann.

Ein paar andere Bibelstellen zum Thema "Milch" und Wachsen: 1 Kor 3,1-3; Heb 6, 1; 1 Pe 2, 2. 21, falls du weiterlesen willst.

If the Messiah came, why do evil and death remain?

That's a question Paul was forced to asked, being steeped in the Rabbinic theology of his day. Here is his answer, according to Bartholomew and Goheen (see also my two other posts: Disappointment with Jesus (I) and Why is Jesus taking so long? (II).):

But if the old has passed away [the 'olam hazeh in the crucifixion] and the new has come [the 'olam haba', in the resurrection], why do evil and death remain in the world? Paul’s letters are charged with the same tension between the “already” and “not yet” aspects of the kingdom of God that we have seen in Jesus’ own teachings, but with some differences in emphasis. For Paul, the kingdom is here already in that Jesus’ death brings an end to the old and his resurrectioinaugurates the new. The Spirit is described as a deposit (or down payment) on the coming kingdom (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:14). A deposit is not merely an IOU or promise for the future; instead, it is a real payment given now as a guarantee that in the future the rest will be paid. The Spirit is also pictured as firstfruits, the first part of the harvest, ready to be enjoyed now, and tangible evidence that the remainder of the harvest will also come (Romans 8:23).

The kingdom has not yet arrived for us in its fullness. We remain in a world that has not yet been fully delivered from the influence of evil, demonic power (2 Corinthians 4:4). We are still surrounded by the darkness of sin and rebellion against God (Ephesians 2:2–3), even while we anticipate the full revelation of God’s kingdom in which those things shall be no more. Thus, in Paul’s thought there is no clearly marked threshold between “the present age” and “the age to come.” We live in the “in-between” time, in which the two ages overlap. Paul goes on to explain that these two ages are allowed to coexist within God’s plan so that the church’s work of mission—the gathering of the nations to the God of Israel—can be accomplished before the final revelation of the kingdom. In fact, God gives this in-between time to the church as its own, to fulfill its calling as his witness to the coming of the kingdom.[*]

[*]Bartholomew, C. G., & Goheen, M. W. (2004). The drama of Scripture: Finding our place in the biblical story (190). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic [footnotes have been removed]

A canonical Paul?

One of the things that astounds me about the scholarly career of Brevard Childs is his ability to push boundaries in scholarship in the most diverse (Biblical) fields. In his lifetime he published groundbreaking work in the following areas: concrete exegetical analyses of Old Testament texts and themes, historical overviews of the discipline along with proposals for ways forward, Old Testament introduction, New Testament introduction, Biblical theology, dogmatic theology, hermeneutics, and the history of interpretation. Luckily his final book, published after he died, seems to continue this trend, this time in the realm of Pauline studies. I haven't gotten round to reading it yet, but Paul e-. Trainor has done a handy review for the Review of Biblical Literature. The book is called The Church's Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus. Read the review here, and if you have time, tell me what you think (you can also peek into it at google books).

This is the right interpretative context!

I've stolen the first quote from Jason Goroncy of P e r ∙ C r u c e m ∙ a d ∙ L u c e m:

When I am faced by such a document as the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, I embark on its interpretation on the assumption that he is confronted with the same unmistakable and unmeasurable significance of that relation [with the figure of Jesus Christ] as I myself am confronted with, and that it is this situation which moulds his thought and its expression. [*]

This echoes Brevard Childs' approach to Biblical Theology:

A major thesis of this book is that much of this modern critical rejection of dogmatic theology has been misplaced and that only when one is able to relate the various biblical witnesses to their subject matter, or substance, can one begin to comprehend the nature of the Bible's coherence.[**]

[*]– Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (trans. E.C. Hoskyns. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 10.

[**] Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology, 551.

Inner-referentiality in the New Testament and the Scriptures as "divine vehicle"

In response to my claim that the canon of Scripture is not just a useful source for historical reconstruction but a vehicle of ongoing divine revelation, a commentator has pointed out that such a view is not found within the Bible itself.

Granted this point, how does one respond to it?

The answer is the one does not draw a doctrine of Scripture form propositional statements made within the individual texts themselves, but rather from an overall understanding of the function of these texts within the life of the community of faith that treasures them and that claims to have been formed in response to them. When one pays attention to the functional dimension of the texts, one sees that they were not only treated as a lens for perceiving the divine reality that had broken into their lives, but as an ongoing source for deeper understanding. This can be seen in the intense intertextuality that characterises the entire Bible. At both earlier and later diachronic levels of the text, one sees a constant dialectic at work in which, on the one hand, the divine reality is understood in terms of sacred tradition and yet, on the other hand, that tradition is "critically shaped" in terms of a deeper understanding the God who had thus revealed himself. Traditions are collected, juxtaposed, subordinated, streamlined etc. to form a coherent whole. At a later stage we have the literary shaping of entire blocks (e.g. torah, prophets, writings), in which the parts are constantly related to each other in order to gain a deeper impression of the whole. The theological implication is that God makes himself known in history, yet this revelation is interpreted within a larger theological framework brokered by tradition (later canonical Scripture).

One example of this intertextual activity is David Trobisch's interesting analysis of the nature of the church's search for a holistic and unified grasp of its scriptures in his The Final Redaction of the New Testament: An Investigation of the Formation of the Christian Bible (probably translated as this one). I take my summary from Childs in his article "Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scriptures of the Church" (1998):

Trobisch argues that there is evidence to show that there already was a definitive edition of hte entire New Testament by the end of the second century. One piece of evidence is the presence of a conscious inner-referentiality within the entire New Testament canon, in which the titles of authorship assigned to each of the writings - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude - are consciously intertwined, thus forming a unified authoritative whole. For example, Mark is linked in Acts with both Paul and Peter and he also is greeted in the letter of 1 Peter. Luke likewise is referred to in the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline collection, and is linked with Mark. John is named in the Fourth Gospel, the synoptics, Acts, and Revelation. Similarly, the Genereal Epistles are consciously linked through cross-referencing to James, Peter, and John. Childs concludes:

The effect is that a knowledge of the whole New Testament corpus emerges as an actual literary force in shaping once independent writings into a unified composition.

In addition to this, the conflict between Peter and Paul, referred to in the letter to the Galations, is brought to a conscious harmonious end in Acts 15. Likewise, Paul and James are joined in a shared plan in Acts 21 to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians in a common collection for Jerusalem. In fact, the major function of the book of Acts is to provide an introduction to the Catholic Epistles and the historical background for the Pauline letters. It also is not accidental that in the last letters of both Paul and Peter the public reading of Scripture within the community of faith is highly recommended.

Though at the time of writing Childs was still not sure of the full implications this work, it illustrates a fresh turn in New Testament studies of seeking to understand the nature of the Church's search for a holistic and unified grasp of its Scriptures.

No doubt Childs discusses this in his posthumous How to Read Paul.

Barth and Bultmann on Romans: Who's the better exegete?

In commemoration of Rudolf Bultmann's birthday, the question was posed on the Bibical Studies List as to who was a better exegete: Bultmann or his life-long antagonist Karl Barth?

The following responses represent a typical understanding of Barth's exegesis:

Barth was a horrible exegete. His Romans commentary is Paul Lite. 99% Barth, 1% Paul. Barth was a theologian much more than an exegete.

One thing about Bultmann is that he was very honest, ... . He clearly makes distinctions between what he believes as a "modern" reader of Scripture, and what the writer of the text believed. With Barth, you get his ideas and theology, and these can be brilliant, but there is often a disconnect with the text if you are looking for anything resembling exegesis.

Here's my response:

My minor point:

if theology is based on false exegesis, then how can it be brilliant?

My main point:

I'm not sure the difference between Bultmann's exegesis and Barth's is a matter of honesty or dogmatic overlay. What is at stake are two fundamentally different ways of conceiving the nature of the text and the discipline of exegesis.

Childs compares Barth's and Bultmann's exegesis of Romans 5.12ff in his chapter on “Humanity: Old and New” in his Biblical Theology (p.588ff) and concluded that whereas “Bultmann follows the usual norms of historical critical exegesis,” Barth “is not only focussing on the verbal sense of Paul's original argument,” he is seeking “to pursue Paul's witness beyond the text itself to reflect theologically on the substance (res) which called forth the witness.” (589). Though Bultmann's exegesis has the strength of staying close to the literary structure of Paul's argument, Barth went beyond what Paul was saying to the issue itself: “the substance of true humanity revealed in Jesus Christ.” Barth was fully aware of the contrast that Bultmann pointed out, but unlike Bultmann, Barth wasn't content to stay at the “literal sense” (my term). His exegesis was an exercise in Biblical Theology, which may explain why Bultmann didn't understand what Barth was doing exegetically.

To repeat: the issue has less to do with honesty or capability and more do with a conception of the nature of the text and the function of exegesis.

I should add that I think Bultmann's use of the word Sache (see my recent post on Bultmann here) parallels Childs' use of the word res. It's the goal of exegesis, except that for Bultmann the text's true subject matter was authentic existence, whereas for Childs and Barth it is God in Jesus Christ.

I have also recently posted on the relation between Bultmann, exegesis, and ideology.

Thread Summary: Examples of "canonical exegesis"

To date, my discussion of the canonical approach on this blog has been largely theoretical and abstract (see this thread, for example). As such, I've decided to collect all my examples of concrete exegesis into one place:

1. Paul's phrase "in accordance with the scriptures"
2. Ancient typology in Genesis 22?
3. The canonical shaping of the Pentateuch, i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leveticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, with the hermeneutical implications thereof.
4. "Immanuel" in a canonical perspective
5. God, Moses, and Scripture
6. Luke 24:13-35 and the dogmatic/exegesis relation
7. Israel and the divided church
8. "Believing" and "unbelieving" exegesis: an example
9. What was the Deuteronomist doing with the law?
10. "Canon" and the "essence" of Old Testament Prophecy
11. How to read Paul
12. Childs on Jesus and Isaiah 53
13. Canonical shaping of the prophets
14. Source criticism and the final form

How to Read Paul

I linked to Childs' latest posthumous book on Paul lately, but didn't say anything about the content. Here's the blurb:

Brevard Childs here turns his sharp scholarly gaze to the works of the apostle Paul and makes an unusual argument: the New Testament was canonically shaped, its formation a hermeneutical exercise in which its anonymous apostles and postapostolic editors collected, preserved, and theologically shaped the material in order for the evangelical traditions to serve successive generations of Christians. Childs contends that within the New Testament the Pauline corpus stands as a unit bookended by Romans and the Pastoral Epistles. He assigns an introductory role to Romans, examining how it puts the contingencies of Paul’s earlier letters into context without sacrificing their particularity. At the other end, the Pastoral Epistles serve as a concluding valorization of Paul as the church’s doctrinal model. By considering Paul’s works as a whole, Childs offers a way to gain a fuller understanding of the individual letters.

I will be focusing my doctorate on the Psalms, but I think in some ways this collection of books parallels the Pauline epistles. Unlike the interwoven traditions that make up the Pentateuch, the Psalms are quite evidently individual units. Nevertheless, the canonical shape of the Psalter coerces a particular kind of reading that brings to light each Psalm's true theological content, while not sacrificing its particularity. I look forward to reading this latest book from the blesséd master (pbuh).

Daniel Driver lists the table of contents here.

Childs' latest book

Biblische Ausbildung announces a new book by Childs, published post-humously of course. Like the ancient Israelite prophets, may his words outlive him and continue to do their magic.

Jim West adds his criticism of Childs here. I often wonder what it is that drives people to only read Childs' critics. You don't have to agree with him, but surely you should read his responses.

Or am I being unfair?

I don't mean to be. I just get exasperated sometimes.

The NT as "witness to revelation": Some thoughts from P. Stuhlmacher

According to Peter Stuhlmacher (for German go here), this is what the New Testament writings claim for themselves (Biblische Theologie I, 4). For the verses go here.

Concerning 1 Cor 2.6-16 he says, "Biblical hermeneutics has to measure itself according to the Gospel and the conditions required for its understanding" (emphasis mine; original: "Biblische Hermeneutik muß sich am Evangelium und den Bedingungen messen lassen, die für sein Verständnis gelten"). This reminds me of an essay by Seitz on scriptural accordance, which I outlined here.

Whether Stuhlmacher is consistent here with his religionsgeschichtliche approach is another question. He got a bashing from Seitz in his essay, "Two Testaments and the Failure of One Tradition-History," in Figured Out. Seitz also critiques von Rad's theological use of traditionsgeschichte, which Stuhlmacher draws upon for justification of his approach (i.e. the New Testament just continues the process; there is a Traditionskontinuität), in his essay, "The Historical-Critical Endeavor as Theology: The Legacy of Gerhard von Rad," in Word Without End.

I love Seitz :)

"In accordance with the scriptures" #1: Three Aspects of the Phrase

[For the entire series, read in the following order: 2, 3, 4]

In his essay ""In Accordance with the Scriptures": Creed, Scripture, and "Historical Jesus"" (1998: 51 - 60), Christopher Seitz discusses three aspects of the phrase "in accordance with the scriptures", found in the Nicene Creed:

1. It's biblical character. "In accordance with the scriptures" is a phrase lifted bodily from 1 Corinthians 15. Therefore, any sharp separation between creed and scripture, between Bible and tradition, between exegesis and theology, misrepresents the situation.
   
2. It's exegetical scope. While the death and resurrection of Jesus are said by the creed to be in accordance with the scriptures, close reading of 1 Corinthians 15 demonstrates that much more is implied by the phrase than that something singular happened to Jesus, according to scripture. "In accordance with the scriptures" says as much about the present life of the risen Lord, and its relationship to us, as it does about dramatic Easter events once upon a time.


3. It's theological significance. To say that Jesus Christ died and rose again in accordance with scripture means that his identity is tied up with Old Testament statements on the front end, and post-Easter convictions on the other. These accordances, preceding and following his earthly life, cannot now be, nor have they ever been, impediments to understanding Jesus as a figure of time and space. "In accordance with the scriptures" is a shorthand for "in accordance with the reality for which God requires our conformity and our obedience". As Jesus was in accordance with scripture, so the church lives in accordance with the Jesus canonically presented and shared with believers through the work of the Holy Spirit.