My Amazing Faculty Colleagues Presenting at the Society of Biblical Literature 2020

I am privileged to teach at a Seminary that is associated with a liberal arts college. I have wonderful faculty colleagues at both institutions.

Northeastern Seminary is on the campus of Roberts Wesleyan College (in Rochester, NY) and while they are formally separate institutions, there is much practical overlap and collaboration between both the institutions and the faculty.

Of late, there have been joint meetings of the Seminary faculty with the faculty of the Department of Religion and Philosophy at the College. And, although faculty members find their home primarily in either the Seminary or the College, some of us teach in both institutions.

Here I want to highlight some of my faculty colleagues (in both institutions) who are presenting papers at the 2020 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, which is being held virtually this year (the first time in this format since I began attending in 1991).

Fredrick David Carr Presents on December 8

My colleague in New Testament, Fredrick David Carr, will present his paper on December 8 in a session on Healthcare and Disability in the Ancient World.

David’s paper, called “Experiencing Changes and Changing Experiences: Pauline Transformation and Altered Sensory Capacities,” addresses the apostle Paul’s account in Philippians 3:1–11 of how his sense of identity changed after he was confronted by Christ (which moved him from being a persecutor of the church to the status of apostle).

In his paper, David examines the changes experienced by those who receive cochlear implants, including new relationships and a different sense of selfhood, to “shed light onto the experiential and subjective dimensions of the transformations that Paul describes in Philippians 3,” including his sense that what he previously viewed as “gain” is now counted as “loss.”

Kristin Helms Presents on December 10

My colleague in Old Testament, Kristin Helms, will present her paper on December 10 in a session on the Literature and History of the Persian Period.

Kristin’s paper, called “The Roaming Eyes of Yahweh in Zech 4:10b and the Context of Persian Religions,” examines the background of the strange image in Zechariah’s fifth vision of a lampstand, which is identified with the “eyes of YHWH” roaming through the earth.

In her paper, Kristin examines competing suggestions for where Zechariah got his image, and ends up suggesting that it is drawn not only from the network of persons in ancient Persia known as “the eyes and ears of the king” (suggested by some scholars), but also from the portrayal of Mithra in Persian religion, who is “associated with fire, light, and eyes that roam throughout the earth for the sake of seeking out injustice.” She apples this background to Zechariah 4:10b, suggesting that the text uses this imagery “to encourage the people that YHWH, the Emperor of the cosmos and maintainer of justice, is at work to bring about a hopeful, purified future.”

Josef Sykora Presented on December 2

My colleague in Old Testament, Josef Sykora, presented his paper on December 2 in a session on Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible.

Josef’s paper, called “A Different Kind of Crusade: Jesus’s Commissioning of His Disciples in Luke 10:1–24 as Reworking the Rules for Warfare in Deuteronomy 20:10–14,” examines the parallels and divergences between the texts in Deuteronomy 20 and Luke 10, to see if it is plausible that Jesus is intentionally drawing on the ancient rules of warfare.

He insightfully demonstrates that both Deuteronomy and Luke give similar instructions to those who are sent out, including an offer of peace to those they encounter and two possible outcomes depending on the responses of those they meet. Yet while Luke’s Gospel presents a battle with the powers of evil and the disciples are parallel to Israel’s soldiers, the texts diverge in that in Luke it is God and not the disciples who bring judgment.

My Own Paper Presented on December 1

Although I was scheduled to give a paper at SBL in a session on the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, the organizers decided to postpone the session until next year, when (hopefully) the SBL will meet in person (in San Antonio, TX).

However, I did present in the Institute for Biblical Research (an affiliated organization, which meets under the umbrella of the SBL), in a session on The Relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament.

My paper, initially called “Herod as Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar: A ‘Political’ Reading of the Prophets in Matthew’s Infancy Narrative,” examined the way that Matthew’s Gospel cited Old Testament texts from the Prophetic books to address the political situation at the time of Jesus’s birth. The actual paper I gave had a slightly different title from what was listed in the program, since I adapted it to the timeframe I had for presentation.

The paper I presented was called “Herod as Pharaoh? Jesus as David? Matthew’s ‘Political’ Reading of the Prophets in the Infancy Narratives” (click here for the paper). I suggested that when we read Matthew 1–2 as a “feel good” story for the Christmas season, we miss the astute sociopolitical critique of the Jerusalem power structure that Matthew intended by his use of quotations from Hosea 11:1 and Micah 5:2 (with a line from 2 Samuel 5:2 spliced in). There is nothing sentimental about Matthew’s portrayal of the newly born king of the Jews, who would be a very different sort of leader not only from Herod, but also from David of old.

My Upcoming Presentation on December 7

I also have a short presentation coming up on December 7 (tomorrow) in a session on Science, Technology, and Religion at the American Academy of Religion (which meets in conjunction with the SBL).

This session is devoted to a recently published book, called The T&T Clark Companion of Christian Theology and the Modern Sciences, ed. by John P. Slattery, Bloomsbury Companions (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2020).

Everyone who contributed a chapter in this book was invited to give a brief presentation on their chapter. Of the many who contributed chapters, eight of us, along with the editor, agreed.

As part of this session, I will give a short explanation of my chapter, called “The Genesis Creation Accounts.”

I recently wrote a blog post (here) on the book and my article.

If you are registered for the AAR-SBL annual meeting, you are invited to attend any of these session that interest you.

Let’s Put Herod Back into Christmas (A Meditation on Matthew 2:1-23)

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. (Matthew 2:16)


As long as I can remember, I’ve heard Christians bemoaning the commercialization of Christmas, the mad rush to buy gifts, the annual spending frenzy. “Let’s put Christ back into Christmas” was their recurring refrain. Although I’m sympathetic with the genuine concern here, I think it’s misplaced.

The commercialization of Christmas doesn’t actually exclude Christ. He’s there in the manger scenes we know and love, even in department stores and shopping malls. The Christ-child lies blissfully in a decorative, gilt-edged manger lit by neon and flashing colored lights, while the muzak drones, “Sleep in heavenly peace.” The problem is not that the commercialization of Christmas has displaced Christ. The problem is that this Christ doesn’t match the biblical portrayal. According to Matthew, Jesus did not sleep in heavenly peace. On the contrary he slept—if at all—in the midst of great danger and death. It’s difficult to sleep when you’re a refugee, fleeing for your life. It’s difficult to sleep with Herod around.

Unfortunately, the Christ that many Christians want to put back into Christmas tends to be a sentimentalized figure, strangely removed from the world of Herod—the real world of pain and brokenness. And so this Christ is largely irrelevant. A baby sleeping in heavenly peace is irrelevant to anyone grieving the loss of a loved one, to anyone who’s been sexually abused, to anyone living in a war zone. He’s irrelevant to the unemployed and the underemployed, to those struggling with doubt and disappointment. He’s certainly irrelevant to anyone sleeping downtown on a heating grate this winter. Tear-jerking manger scenes and soothing Christmas carols just don’t cut it in a world that’s full of the reality of Herod.

This is not to deny the traditional picture of the Christ-child lying vulnerable in Bethlehem with the wise men bringing gifts. But it’s important not to miss the point Matthew makes (quoting Micah) that the Messiah was born in small-town Bethlehem (no-place, Judah) because God bypassed glorious Jerusalem, the great city, where Herod ruled. And God bypassed Herod, king of the Jews, and chose to work through a poor peasant couple and a child of questionable birth-status.

And who comes to worship the child? Not Herod, nor any orthodox religious leaders, but pagan astrologers. This baby lying vulnerable in Bethlehem was perceived rightly by these “wise” pagans to be the true king of the Jews, whose birth had such cosmic significance that there was a new star in the heavens. Herod himself rightly perceived this baby lying vulnerable in Bethlehem to be a threat to his pretensions of power. So threatening, indeed, as to justify the frenzied slaughter of innocent babies.

This doesn’t mean we should never enjoy manger scenes or get teary-eyed when we sing carols or watch the kids acting out the nativity story. But let’s never forget why God showered his unfathomable love upon us at Christmas two thousand years ago: because he cared so much for our wounds, and for this suffering world, that he personally entered the fray, this bloodbath we call history, to redeem us—and history—from the bloodbath.

So, although I can appreciate the desire to “put Christ back into Christmas” in order to counter the commercialization of this sacred holiday, I want to suggest that we put Herod back into Christmas, and so counter the sentimentalized glitz with which the season has been papered over.

The fact is that Herod is integral to Christmas, because Herod places the birth of Jesus squarely in history. At one level that’s literally true. We date Jesus’ birth between 6 and 4 B.C. because Herod died in 4 B.C. and he ordered the slaughter of children under two. Herod places Jesus chronologically in history. But Herod also places Jesus in the harsh reality of history. Jesus didn’t come into some mythical, storybook, never-never land. He came into the world of Herod. The world we know only too well.

And he came to take Herod out. That’s what Christmas is all about: the decisive blow God dealt to evil, injustice, and suffering at the cross. But it started in Bethlehem, when a baby lying vulnerable in a manger threatened a tyrant. Can we, like the wise men, discern the cosmic significance of that this Christmas?

_____________________________________________

This article by J. Richard Middleton first appeared in The Catalyst (Toronto), vol. 16, nos. 8-9 (November-December 1993) and received an award in 1994 for best “Theological Reflection—Inspirational” from the Canadian Church Press.

Esau McCaulley was Dynamite! Report on the Rochester Preaching Conference

I just came from presenting with Rev. Esau McCaulley (doctoral candidate in New Testament at the University of St. Andrews) at the annual Preaching Conference of the Rochester Consortium of Theological Schools, held at St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry (May 21, 2015). We had a great time, with lots of discussion, both in the Q&A after each talk and during lunch with the attendees.

My presentation on Matthew’s use of the Old Testament in the infancy narratives had considerable overlap with his presentation on Paul’s understanding of the Law in Galatians 3:10-14.

Just as I addressed Matthew’s use of four Old Testament quotations, Rev. McCaulley addressed Paul’s use of four OT passages in the Galatians text. In both presentations we argued that the New Testament writer in question (Matthew/ Paul) was reading the OT texts in context with significant discernment.

Further, we both focused on how the broader biblical narrative of Israel’s crisis/exile and coming Messianic resolution framed the argument of the New Testament text. And in both cases we addressed the communal and socio-political implications of the text relevant for preaching.

It looked like we had collaborated on our presentations, but we hadn’t. This just shows that when Rev. McCaulley begins as a new faculty member at Northeastern Seminary (part-time, at a distance this Fall, and full-time on campus in Fall 2016) there’s going to be great synergy in the biblical studies courses—and, indeed, with the entire core curriculum of NES, which emphasizes the relationship of Bible, theology, and praxis.

In fact, since Rev. McCaulley just signed his contract with Northeastern (the day before the conference), he is already technically on the faculty.

So I want to affirm the welcome to Professor Esau McCaulley that Doug Cullum, the Dean of NES, extended at the conference. Lots of students are eagerly looking forward to taking your courses and being mentored by you.

You can access Esau McCaulley’s blog here.