2017 | Volume 21 | Number 2nal of Ministry ologyFall 2017 | Volume 21 | Number 2&of Ministry TheologyJOURNALCONTENTSSecond-Temple Exegetical Methods: The Possibility of Contextual Midrash ....3Jared M. August(Re)Defining the Gospels: Mark as a Test Case, Part One ..............................42Wayne SlusserContributing to the Faith Once Delivered: Jude, Systematic Theology, and an Appeal to Pastors ........................................................................77Dan WileyThe Early Life and Influence of John Nelson Darby .....................................110Bruce A. BakerA Review of Executing Grace: How the Death Penalty Killed Jesus and Why It’s Killing Us, by Shane Claiborne ...............................................127Mark McGinnissCharlottesville: How Should the Church Respond........................................148Ken DavisBook Reviews ............................................................................................160Dissertations in Progress ............................................................................216The Journal of Ministry & Theology Published semiannually by Baptist Bible Seminary, South Abington Township, Pennsylvania Jim Lytle President Lee Kliewer Seminary Dean Mark McGinniss Editor Jared August Book Review Editor Alair August Editorial Assistant Teresa Ingalls Editorial Assistant Editorial Content Team: Bill Higley, Wayne Slusser, Jared August, Ken Gardoski, Ken Davis, Ken Pyne, Mike Dellaperute, and Mark McGinniss. The Journal of Ministry & Theology (ISSN: 1092-9525) is published twice a year (June and October) by Clarks Summit University, 538 Venard Road, South Abington Township, Pennsylvania 18411. Address changes may be sent to The Journal of Ministry & Theology at the address above or emailed to JMAT@ClarksSummitU.edu. Subscription Rates: Individual subscriptions for one year $20.00 ($25.00 outside of the United States). Institutional subscriptions for one year $30.00. Single issues available at $10.00 each. Subscription requests should be sent to The Journal of Ministry & Theology at the address above or JMAT@ClarksSummitU.edu. You can subscribe at this link: https://www.clarkssummitu.edu/seminary/resources/. All subscriptions are in US currency, with credit card or a check payable to Baptist Bible Seminary – The Journal of Ministry & Theology. Submission guidelines for potential manuscripts may be requested from JMAT@ClarksSummitU.edu. Manuscripts to be considered for publication may be submitted to JMATeditor@ClarksSummitU.edu. The JMAT is indexed in the EBSCO Academic Search Premier database and appears in full text in the Theological Journal Library. The opinions represented herein are endorsed by the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit University, its administration, or its faculty. Copyright ©2017 by Baptist Bible Seminary. The Journal of Ministry & Theology hereby grants permission for articles to be made available in print or electronic form for a church ministry or classroom provided no more than 100 copies are distributed (in print or electronically) and no fee is charged and if the distributed or posted article or review includes “Copyright (year). Reprinted by permission. The Journal of Ministry & Theology.” Permission for any other use, including posting on the Internet, must be sought in advance from The Journal of Ministry & Theology and the individual author. The Journal of Ministry & Theology 3 Second-Temple Exegetical Methods: The Possibility of Contextual Midrash Jared M. August Abstract: Numerous proposals exist as to how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. Several scholars have advocated that the NT authors used a non-contextual approach to the OT based upon the existence of midrash and pesher in the Second Temple era. Their logic is that the NT authors would have employed hermeneutical methods similar to those of their contemporaries. However, when the literature of the Second Temple era is examined, it becomes evident that there was no one monolithic interpretive approach. Rather, two noticeably distinct strands of midrash emerge: (1) non-contextual midrash and (2) contextual midrash. This distinction raises the possibility that the NT authors may have utilized midrashic techniques, while remaining consistent with the original meaning of the OT. Ultimately, this distinction prohibits scholars from claiming that the NT authors “used midrash” to reject their contextual use of the OT. ***** here are numerous differing proposals concerning how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament.2 While Jared August is a Ph.D. student at Baptist Bible Seminary in South Abington Township, Pennsylvania, and Book Review Editor of The Journal of Ministry & Theology. You can reach Jared at jaugust24@gmail.com. 2 For an introduction to the topic of the NT use of the OT, see Darrell Bock, “Part 1: Evangelicals and Their Use of the Old Testament in the New,” BibSac 142, no. 567 (July 1985): 209-23; “Part 2: Evangelicals and Their Use of the Old Testament in the New,” BibSac 142, no. 567 (October 1985): 306-19; and Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008); G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); and Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New T 4 The Journal of Ministry & Theology several scholars point to the NT authors’ contextually sensitive handling of the OT, others are quick to assert that their methodology is dependent upon non-contextual, Second Temple Jewish exegetical methods (such as midrash and pesher). Still others, while acknowledging the use of various Second Temple tendencies, claim that the overall approach is characterized by acute awareness of the original context of the passages cited. Through surveying the current consensus of proposed methodologies, as well as a careful examination of what these methodologies entail, the exegetical methodology of the NT authors will become evident. Ultimately, scholars writing on the issue largely adhere to one of two categories: (1) Non-Contextual Exegesis: These individuals assert that the NT authors used the OT in a non-contextual fashion, neglecting the OT context in order to present their own NT message. While perhaps this is the majority perspective, this view is by no means unanimous. (2) Contextual Exegesis: Others claim that in their use of the OT, the NT authors demonstrate considerable clarity and precision—occasionally employing surprising methods, yet consistently showing a contextual understanding of the OT. Through the following examination of Second Temple midrash and pesher, it will be established that contextual exegesis was indeed a possible exegetical option for the NT authors. (Chicago: Moody, 1985). Additionally, see Scott A. Swanson, “Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament? Why Are We Still Trying?” TJ 17, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 67-76; Martin Pickup, “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological Rational of Midrashic Exegesis,” JETS 51, no. 2 (June 2008): 353-81; Richard N. Longenecker, “Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?” TynBul 21 (1970): 3-38; and Robert L. Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” MSJ 13, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 79-98; Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967); Krister Stendahl, The School of Matthew: And Its Use of the Old Testament (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1967); Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); O. Lamar Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association, 1976). Second-Temple Exegetical Methods 5 Although this cannot prove their consistent contextual interpretation of the OT, at the very least, it validates the possibility of Second Temple contextual exegesis. Non-Contextual Exegesis The central thesis of those affirming the NT authors’ non-contextual exegetical methodology is that through their use of first-century Jewish exegetical methods, they effectively distorted the OT beyond recognition. As E. Earle Ellis articulates, “Like the teachers of Qumran, [the NT authors] proceed from the conviction that the meaning of the Old Testament is a ‘mystery’ whose ‘interpretation’ can be given not by human reason but only by the Holy Spirit.”3 As such, it stands to reason that, if the rabbis of their day would minimize the importance of the OT context, so would the apostles. Peter Enns is a firm advocate of this view. Enns states, “The NT authors were not engaging the OT in an effort to remain consistent with the original context and intention of the OT author.”4 From this assertion, Enns devotes significant 3 E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 172. Despite this rejection of the contextual nature of the NT authors’ methodology, Ellis states that he has written his book “in the abiding conviction that the New Testament presents to us not merely the opinions of Christian writers but also the message of God mediated through faithful prophets” (vi). 4 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 115. In contrast to Enns’s position, see three critiques on his book by G. K. Beale, “Myth, History, And Inspiration: A Review Article Of Inspiration And Incarnation By Peter Enns” JETS 49, no. 2 (June 2006): 287-312; and “Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Revisiting the Debate Seventeen Years Later in the Light of Peter Enns’ Book, Inspiration and Incarnation,” Themelios 32, no. 1 (October 2006): 18-43; “A Surrejoinder to Peter Enns,” Themelios 32, no. 3 (May 2007): 14-25. Worth noting is Beale’s observation in “Right Doctrine from Wrong Texts”: “Enns’ list of ‘strange’ uses are not that many; indeed, he lists only eight such uses (114-42): Exodus 3:6 in Luke 20:27-40; Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15; Isaiah 49:8 in 2 Corinthians 6:2; Abraham’s seed in Galatians 3:16, 29; Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26-27; Psalm 95:9-10 in 6 The Journal of Ministry & Theology discussion to the premise that this non-contextual exegesis should be viewed as legitimate.5 In his view, since the apostles lived in the first century AD, their methodology must not be held to twenty-first century standards. Furthermore, since they lived among and ministered to a primarily Jewish audience, they should be expected to employ similar exegetical methods and techniques.6 Likewise, when writing specifically of Matthew and his mission to communicate the Jewish hope of a Messiah in his cultural setting, Krister Stendahl states, “The Matthaean type of midrashic interpretation … closely approaches what has been called the midrash pesher of the Qumran Sect, in which the O.T. texts were not primarily the source of rules, but the prophecy which was shown to be fulfilled [in current events].”7 In essence, Stendahl argues that just as the literature of Qumran shows little concern for the historic context of the OT, neither does Matthew.8 In both cases, the OT is cited to show fulfillment of contemporary events. Again, when writing specifically of Matthew, another proponent of non-contextual methodology, Richard Longenecker, states, “Matthew’s use of Scripture is extensive and goes much beyond what has been called historico- Hebrews 3:7-11. … He needs to list many more texts in order to support this claim, and he needs to give representative surveys of the various interpretations of each passage in order to show the varying interpretations of these passages and whether or not some of these interpretations contrast the oddity” (23). 5 Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 113-66. 6 See also Peter Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s Review Article Of Inspiration And Incarnation,” JETS 49, no. 2 (June 2006): 313-26; “Response to Professor Greg Beale,” Themelios 32, no. 3 (May 2007): 5-13. 7 Stendahl, School of Matthew, 35. 8 When commenting on Stendahl’s work, Kaiser states that this “method of utilizing quotations emphasized the application of the OT texts apart from their historical context. … In actual practice, this appeared to be little more than a sophisticated form of allegorizing or spiritualizing of the OT text” (Uses of the OT, 227). Second-Temple Exegetical Methods 7 grammatical exegesis.”9 In other words, the hermeneutical methods employed are supposedly far from what modern exegetes would consider “critical” or “accurate.” Again, this view depends upon the premise that Matthew employed first-century Jewish methods: “The First Gospel should be [viewed as] a pesher handling of the biblical text and application of its meaning.”10 Although the validity of this assertion will be evaluated below, it is important to recognize the point which Longenecker implicitly makes, namely, that Jewish exegetical methods assume non-contextual exegesis.11 Consider his conclusion to the topic in general: As students of history we can appreciate something of what was involved in their exegetical procedures, and as Christians we commit ourselves to their conclusions. But … I suggest that we cannot reproduce their pesher exegesis. … Likewise, I suggest that we should not attempt to reproduce their midrashic handling of the text, their allegorical explications, or much of their Jewish manner of argumentation.12 This is a strong statement. Again, Longenecker seems to make the assumption that whenever the NT authors employ Jewish exegetical methods, their conclusions are automatically uncritical and irreproducible. Although certainly not all Jewish 9 Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 124. 10 Ibid., 126. The term pesher will be defined in depth below. Also, consider Stendahl, School of Matthew, 183-202, who devotes significant discussion to the Matthew’s supposed use of pesher. 11 As will be discussed, first-century Jewish exegetical methods do not necessitate non-contextual exegesis. 12 Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 197. However, earlier in his book, Longenecker asserts, “We must abandon the mistaken ideas that the New Testament writers’ treatment of the Old Testament was … an illegitimate twisting and distortion of ancient text” (186). Longenecker asserts that these methods were viable only for the apostolic community, as they were under the “direction of the Holy Spirit” (187). As such, Longenecker ends up in a rather precarious position, asserting that the NT authors’ methods were not bad enough to say they were “twisting” the text, but they were not good enough to be considered viable for today. 8The Journal of Ministry & Theologyexegeticalmethodsarecontextuallyviable,tosimplyassumetheirnon-contextualnatureintotoisfartooextremeaposition.Atthispoint,itisnecessarytoexaminetheassertionsofseveralwhoholdtotheNTauthors’contextualmethodology.ContextualExegesisContrarytotheassertionsofthosearguingfortheNTauthors’non-contextualmethodology,numerousscholarspresentthepremisethattheseindividualswerekeenlyawareofthecontextoftheOTpassageswhichtheycited.Forexample,concerningtheNTauthorsingeneral,C.H.DoddwritesoftheapostolicappealtothebackgroundcontextofOTpassages.Heassertsthatindoingso,theapostleswerenotmerelyselectingprooftexts.Doddstates,Iwouldsubmitthat,whilethereisafringeofquestionable,arbitraryorevenfancifulexegesis,themainlineofinterpretationoftheOTexemplifiedintheNewisnotonlyconsistentandintelligentinitself,butalsofoundeduponagenuinelyhistoricalunderstandingofthe…historyofIsraelasawhole.13DoddmakesthepointthatwhiletheNTauthorsusetheOTinoftenunexpectedanddiverseways,wheneachpassageisexamined,theapostles’intentionalityinregardstotheoriginalcontextbecomesevident.Assuch,whilerecognizingtheculturalmilieuinwhichtheNTauthorsfoundthemselves,Doddmakesadefinitedistinctionbetweenthecommonpracticesoftheapostles’Jewishcontemporariesandtheapostlesthemselves.Furthermore,evenRobertGundry(whorejectsthehistoricityofMatthew)assertsthatMatthew’sinterpretivemethoddoesnot“comefromorstandparalleltoQumran,whereeachphraseoftheOTtextismadetofitanewhistoricalsituationregardlessofcontextandwherewemeetfar-fetched13C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953), 133.Second-Temple Exegetical Methods 9 allegorical interpretations and ingenious word-play.”14 This statement from Gundry is rather surprising, given his position that Matthew is midrashic and unhistorical in nature. However, that makes it all the more valuable.15 For even he recognizes the difference between the haphazard hermeneutics employed by Qumran, and the “new and coherent hermeneutical approach to the OT” demonstrated by the apostles.16 Although this does not diminish the likelihood that the NT authors made use of various first-century techniques, the point is that by and large, there is a noticeable difference between the exegesis common to Judaism in the first century and the exegesis of the apostles.17 14 Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 213. Also, consider his statement, “It is established, then, that in common with the other NT writers Mt does not deal atomistically with the OT in the sense that he does not search either haphazardly or systematically for isolated proof-texts, but in the main confines himself to areas of the OT which the church recognized as having special bearing upon the ministry of Jesus Christ” (208). 15 Ironically, although Gundry presents the differences between first-century Jewish exegesis and the exegesis of Matthew in his book The Use of the Old Testament, he asserts the similarities in his subsequent book Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Gundry goes so far as to state, “Matthew edited historical traditions in unhistorical ways and in accord with midrashic and haggadic practices to which he and his first readers were accustomed. … Comparison with the other gospels, especially with Mark and Luke, and examination of Matthew’s style and theology show that he materially altered and embellished historical traditions and that he did so deliberately and often” (639). For a response to Gundry’s work, see Douglas J. Moo, “Matthew and Midrash: An Evaluation of Robert H. Gundry’s Approach,” JETS 26, no. 1 (March 1983): 31-39. Moo offers a very compelling rebuttal of Gundry’s work. 16 Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 213. Additionally, he states, “Both Qumran hermeneutics and rabbinical hermeneutics are supremely oblivious to contextual exegesis whenever they wish” (205). This is stated in contrast to the hermeneutics employed by the NT authors. 17 Additionally, Gundry states, “The theological depth and coherence of the hermeneutical principles [stand] in sharp contrast with Qumran and rabbinic exegesis” (Ibid., 215). He also states, “The naturalness with which the Matthew quotations fall under easily recognizable principles of Next >