Interpretation Sparks a Grave Theology Debate
Daniel B. Wallace, New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, said he disagrees with Licona's interpretation but considers the issue hermeneutical, not a challenge to biblical inerrancy.
"If we view our own interpretation to be just as inerrant as the Scriptures," he said, "this could ironically elevate tradition and erode biblical authority."
Already, at least two Southern Baptist entities—the New Orleans seminary and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention—have rescinded invitations for Licona to speak at apologetics conferences, Licona said.
The NAMB, meanwhile, eliminated Licona's position. Licona said the decision came after he offered to resign rather than cast a shadow over the board and its president, Kevin Ezell.
"I love NAMB and Kevin and wanted to protect them," Licona said. "They then decided to make the call and eliminate my position. Now that the issue has escalated far beyond what I had ever expected, it was definitely a good decision."
Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
Previous Christianity Today articles about biblical inerrancy and interpretation include:
A New Bible Battle | It's not about doctrine but our use of Scripture. (October 7, 2011)
How to Read the Bible | New strategies for interpreting Scripture turn out to be not so new—and deepen our life in Christ. (October 7, 2011)
Battle for the Bible Translation | Our movement is wide enough to include a variety of methods. (September 2, 2011)
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Starting a Dialogue with Hip-Hop
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013
It's the Thoughts That Count
(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.