Tag Archive - intertextuality

The Return of Jesus for Israel in Rom 11?

September 2, 2011 in Bible Thoughts with 8 Comments

“The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom 11:25).

Among many Christians, this is a popular verse about the return of Jesus. Among American evangelicals and Dispensationals, it has often been a source of hope for Israel’s final salvation. The verse in Paul is a citation from Isaiah, and Paul says, “Thus all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, the deliverer will come from Zion…”

All Israel, then, will be saved when Jesus comes back.

But does this “Jesus is coming, look Jewish” reading hold up?

Let’s look at a couple of factors. First, how does Paul use the word “Zion”?

The only other use of this word in the Pauline corpus is also part of an OT citation, his invocation of Isa 28:16 in Rom 9:33: “Israel… did not attain to the law. Why? Because no through faithfulness but as through works–they stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, ‘Behold! I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and everyone who believes in him shall not be put to shame” (Rom 9:32-33).

Here, the referent of Zion is quite earthly. The one who has been placed as stumbling stone is the crucified and risen Christ. His faithfulness is to be the object of the people’s faith. The point of laying the stone “in Zion” is precisely so that it can be in the presence of the people–to be believed or stumbled upon.

Is it possible to read this verse as referring to an earthly Jerusalem? Indeed it is–and to do so brings us within the orbit of not only the previous mention of Zion in Rom 9, but the overall argument of Rom 11.

If we hold the idea from ch. 9 in our heads, we come to ch. 11 with the notion that the presence of Jesus in Zion is a cause of Israel’s stumbling–paradoxically, he is present both as the one who can save and as the one who is stumbled over.

In fact, this is exactly the problem Paul is dealing with throughout ch. 11: Israel has stumbled over the stumbling stone–they have rejected Jesus as God’s promised salvation.

What is the result of Israel’s rejection of the gospel? As Paul delineates it in ch. 11, it is this: salvation goes out to the gentiles:

  • By their transgression salvation has come to gentiles, 11:11
  • their transgression is riches for the world, 11:12
  • their rejection is reconciliation of the world, 11:15
  • they were broken off in order that gentiles might be ingrafted, 11:17
  • they are enemies for the gentiles’ sake, 11:28
  • they were faithless so that gentiles might be shown mercy, 11:31

The entire chapter, in other words, points toward one particular result of Israel “stumbling over the stumbling stone”: salvation goes out from Israel to the Gentiles.

Or, as 11:26 puts it, citing Isa 59: “The deliverer will go out from Zion.”

Indeed, the statement for which Paul offers Isa 59 as proof is this: “A partial hardening has happened until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, and thus all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, ‘The deliverer will go forth out of Zion…’”

The “going out of Zion” is not the eschatological future, it is the eschatological present. It is not about the return of Jesus some years hence, but the proclamation of the gospel to the ends of the earth.

This part of the citation, the deliverer going forth out of Zion, speaks to Paul’s and others’ work in bringing in the full number of the gentiles (11:25)

But what about “removing ungodliness from Jacob”? What about “all Israel shall be saved”?

That is the next act in the story as Paul was anticipating it to unfold. We’ll look at that tomorrow.

Ancient Reading, NT Hearers

November 12, 2010 in Bible Thoughts with 4 Comments

How did ancients listen to texts?

This question comes up repeatedly in Biblical studies, especially New Testament studies, particularly when questions of intertextuality come up. What sorts of questions could we have anticipated that auditors of the NT would be asking? Would they be listening for OT allusions, would they be filling in missing links, would they be supplying narrative contexts, would they be recognizing and judging transformations of the old texts in their new contexts?

Often, NT scholars will seem to ask for quite a lot from original audiences. A regular critique of Richard Hays’ work on the OT in the NT is that “echoes” would not be audible to listeners, or that filling in the gaps of original context is not something they would actively engage in.

Doing his studies in the discipline of Classics, David Konstan has some thoughts on ancient readers. In short, he believes that ancient educational practices, as well as practices of publicly listening and responding to spoken discourse, formed active listeners that were always policing the texts they were listening to.

One important part of his case is tied to the slippage I just made between written and oral communication. Oral is often preferred, precisely because the speaker is there to argue with. And this is better because (a) it is assumed that written communication will be listened to/ spoken aloud, and that (b) the same process of argument will be engaged, but without the benefit of the speaker being present.

In regard to this, another important point for us to remember is that the NT writings not only would have been read aloud, but would have been read aloud to groups of people. This means that the presence of even one or two people who were actively interrogating the text, and verbally responding as they were likely to do, would have meant that the whole community would be drawn into the process of being informed in their listening by the on-going debate and engagement.

Here are some quotes from “The Active Reader in Classical Antiquity” (Argos 30 [2006]: 7-18):

    … they read and were taught to read critically, judging as they went and engaging the text in argument, as it were. People read and listened actively, wresting authority over the text from the writer… But in classical antiquity, as I hope to show, readers expected texts to offer challenges, not just passive pleasure, and writers fashioned their works for such a public. As a result, texts tended to be provocative and to invite comment and even disagreement. If this is so, then recognizing the fact may help us to understand better how classical texts work, and what they may demand of us as active readers.
    Writers could count on a readership or audience that was almost obsessively attentive, whether in regard to narrative detail or the evaluation of an argument, and was prepare to respond to and fill in the text.
    Ancient Greek and Latin literature was demanding, both technically and for its ethical implications. It deliberately left questions unresolved and challenged the understanding and the judgment of the reader, who in turn was trained and expected to play an active part in, as it were, constituting the text.

This vision of active reading in the ancient world has an important role to play in our on-going discussion of what we could expect of ancient audiences of the Ancient Mediterranean.

Perhaps they could hear more than contemporary scholars are sometimes willing to give them credit for?

SBL Sessions, Everybody’s Doing It

June 2, 2010 in Academia with 7 Comments

Since everyone else and their mom is posting where they’ll be presenting during SBL, courtesy of the online program, far be it from me to refrain!

Intertextuality in the New Testament
11/20/2010
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM

Theme: Approaches Toward New Testament Intertextuality

Jerry L. Sumney, Lexington Theological Seminary, Presiding (2 min)
Alain Gignac, Université de Montréal, Université de Montréal
“We know that everything that Law says… “. Rom 3:9-20 as a narrative utilization of intertextuality that develops its own theory of intertextuality (30 min)
Discussion (7 min)
J. R. Daniel Kirk, Fuller Theological Seminary
Toward a Theory of Narrative Transformation: The Importance of First Context in Paul’s Scriptural Citations (30 min)
Discussion (7 min)
Jason B. Hood, Christ United Methodist Church
Summaries of Israel’s Story: Intertextual Pratice in an Overlooked Use of Scripture (30 min)
Discussion (7 min)
Jim Waddell, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
The Intertextuality of First Enoch, Paul, and the Gospel of Matthew: Modeling Early Jewish Messianic Systems (30 min)
Discussion (7 min)

And then this panel discussion:

From Dissertation to Publication: Advice from Editors and Authors
11/21/2010
1:00 PM to 2:30 PM

Hosted by the Student Advisory Group

Brandon Wason, Emory University, Presiding
Claudia Camp, Texas Christian University, Panelist (15 min)
Jeremy M. Hutton, Princeton Theological Seminary, Panelist (15 min)
J. R. Daniel Kirk, Fuller Theological Seminary, Panelist (15 min)
Gregory Sterling, University of Notre Dame, Panelist (15 min)
Discussion (30 min)

Nothing like being on a panel that gives “advice”–yes, I get to tell people what to do. Awesome!