Interpretation Sparks a Grave Theology Debate
A fiery debate has erupted over a leading Southern Baptist apologist's questioning of Matthew 27. The question: whether Matthew's reference to many saints rising from their graves after Jesus' resurrection might not be literal history.
The theological war of words, spurred by high-profile open letters and retorts on the Internet, has raised questions about the meaning of biblical inerrancy. It has also led to the departure of Michael Licona as apologetics coordinator for the North American Mission Board (NAMB).
At issue is a passage of Licona's 700-page The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, published in 2010 by InterVarsity Press.
"Based on my reading of the Greco-Roman, Jewish, and biblical literature, I proposed that the raised saints are best interpreted as Matthew's use of an apocalyptic symbol communicating that the Son of God had just died," said Licona, former research professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. Licona voluntarily resigned from the seminary on October 4 after the print version of this article went to press.
In a series of open letters posted online, Norman Geisler, distinguished professor of apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California, objected to Licona's characterizing the passage as a "strange little text." Geisler accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of Scripture. He also called for Licona to recant his interpretation, labeling it "unorthodox, non-evangelical, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of evangelicalism."
In a 2,800-word blog post, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, praised Licona's book as "virtually unprecedented in terms of evangelical scholarship" and "nothing less than a masterful defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
Yet Mohler devoted most of the post to criticizing what he called Licona's "shocking and disastrous argument" concerning the bodily resurrection of the saints.
Licona replied to Geisler that additional research has led him to re-examine his position. "At present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative … as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol," Licona wrote.
In the wake of the controversy, a number of leading evangelical scholars came to Licona's defense—some publicly, others privately.
"I know a good number of evangelical seminary professors who have privately expressed support for Mike Licona but cannot do so publicly for fear of punitive measures," said Paul Copan, an apologist and president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
In comments to Christianity Today, Craig Blomberg, a New Testament professor at Denver Seminary, complained of "the tragedy of 'witch hunts' of this nature." He accused Licona's critics of "going after fellow inerrantists with whom they disagree and making life miserable for them for a long time in ways that are unnecessary, inappropriate, and counterproductive to the important issues of the Kingdom."
Bill Warren, director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, said Licona has earned more leeway than some in the evangelical academic community are affording him.
"What should be kept in mind," Warren said, "is that a person who has been well-received, written prolifically in multiple contexts, and taken firm stands in the apologetic arena in defense of orthodoxy surely should not be tossed aside based on his interpretation of one passage in a massive volume."
The Latest in Movie News, May 23, 2013
God Among the Roma
Grieving with the Good Friday God
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 74 comments
See all comments
rickd
Of course, you have the resurrection of the widow's son by Elisha, the resurrection of the dead man in the grave when Elisha's bones touched him, the resurrection of Lazurus, the Resurrection of the widow of Nain's son. Jesus instruction to the 12 disciples to heal the sick and raise the dead, Jesus' resurrection, the resurrection of the saints in Jerusalem when Jesus was raised, The resurrection of Tabitha and Eutychus in Acts, plus all the current documented accounts around the world today. So, obviously John was talking about an unprecedented general resurrection of of that part of the human race that were Christians, at least a billion saints all at once. A unique event by magnitude only equaled by a following resurrection of all human beings, at least 7 or 8 billion. It was the 1st and second resurrection of this kind. By the way, this also puts the resurrection of the saints in Matthew in context as miraculous but certainly not unprecedented.
Vic
If the resurrection of the saints occurred as stated in Mat 27 then the resurrection mentioned in Rev 20:5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection" could not be labelled THE FIRST RESURRECTION, it would have been the SECOND, so take your pick - which one is correct and which one is false?
rickd
Max, the problem I have is the very first assumption, that the Gospel of Matthew is simply a greco-roman style biography. You state that the “Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches… and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins.” Of course, if you believe the Gospel of Matthew, or the entire Biblical record is full of legend, historical fiction, exagerration and myth, then it would be reasonable and even laudable to develop a methodology to separate fact from fiction. Then I would agree with most of the points of your critique. Go Max! However, these are not mere academic conflicts or disputes over hermeneutics and it is the supporters of Licona who are decrying the “vitriol” and the “witch hunts”. You have a low view of scripture and I and many others here simply do not agree with you.