Oscar Cullman

Oscar Cullman was born in 1902 and spent his first thirty six years in Strasbourg. His early education showed little interest religion; he viewed religion from a academic viewpoint. Cullman was influenced greatly during his early education by German liberal theology, thus rejecting all forms of orthodox Christianity. At this time the city was under the control and influence of the Germans. Following the end of the First World War, Cullmann enrolled at the university at Strasbourg. The city had reverted back to France.
Cullmann’s first exposure to Schweitzer, Barth, and Bultmann came while attending the university. This exposure caused him to relinquish his beliefs about German liberalism. This change in direction came after reading Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer’s work helped convince Cullmann that his former views were a product of the prevailing German culture and not a proper view of Scripture. This rejection of liberal theology placed Cullmann in the company of Barth and Bultmann. Having now rejected the views of Schleiermacher, he followed Bultmann into form criticism in an attempt to discover the oral tradition that forms the basis of the New Testament.
Oscar Cullmann emphasized the role of God’s history of salvation (Heilschichte) in both the formation and understanding of the biblical canon. In 1930 he was nominated as a professor of New Testament at Strasbourg. While those around him at the university were interested in the history of Christianity, Cullmann was separating himself from the Barth and his view of a suprahistorical Christ. He moved to the view that became termed as purely scientific. This meant that the subject matter of the New Testament should only be interpreted in light of the text of the New Testament, rather than in light of previously understood subject matter. Cullmann asserted that the NT was placing “the Christ event” within the context of God’s entire plan of redemptive history. This view molded Cullmann’s view on the kingdom. Biblical eschatology became the focus of several papers written while at Strasbourg. It was in these papers that Cullmann asserted that the NT writers viewed the kingdom of God as neither totally future (as proposed by Schweitzer) nor fully present (as proposed by C.H. Dodd). Instead, Cullmann contended that the kingdom was both realized and still future, which he termed already and not yet.
Even through a job change to Basel Switzerland and the Second World War Cullman continued to publish his proposals on already and not yet eschatology. One year after the World War ended, he published his first book, Christ and Time, which asserted that God’s revelation in Jesus Christ can only be understood in light of God’s entire history of Salvation (Heilgeschichte). This began with the call of Abraham and centers on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It continues through the Spirit in the church and concludes with the return of Christ.
Cullmann believed that “all Christology is Heilgeschichte and all Heilgeschichte is Christology. This approach to Scripture was a departure from the traditional formulas found in the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. While those councils confirmed the human and divine natures of Christ, Cullmann emphasized what Christ did, not who he was. Christ fulfilled a function, that is to rule over the history of salvation both now and in the age to come. Those who object to Cullmann’s assertions about Christ, according to Cullmann, subject the texts of the New Testament to questions raised by later dogmas.
Cullman rejected liberal theology but at the same time embraced parts of it such as seeing Christianity as a historical phenomenon subject to historical investigation. He can also be applauded for interpreting the subject matter of the New Testament in light of the text rather than the other way around. This hermeneutical approach led Cullmann to reject a canon inside or outside the canon. These views on NT interpretation makes Cullmann one of the great influences on the Biblical theology movement in both North America and Europe.

Moses Stuart

One on my favorite scholars of the 19th century is Moses Stuart. Many are unaware of his contributions during this formidable time period of biblical studies.
Moses Stuart was born in Wilton Connecticut in 1780, and graduated from Yale in 1799. Initially, his intentions were far from theological pursuit. Teaching for two years following graduation, Stuart decided to exchange the classroom for the courtroom and become a lawyer. While tutoring and pursuing further legal studies at Yale, he was greatly influenced by Timothy Dwight, son of Jonathan Edwards who was the institution’s president. Dwight’s revivalist preaching persuaded Stuart to reenter Yale College for divinity study. After three years of study, he began pastoring and was considered to have a promising future in New England Congregationalism. His stay in a church pulpit did not last long. Andover Seminary hired him away from pastoral ministry in 1809 to chair the sacred literature department. Moses was twenty-nine at the time he took over at Andover and remained there for forty years.
Moses Stuart was a trailblazer with regard to his writings. North America was not known at this time for producing scholarly discussions on Biblical topics. This did not impede Stuart from continually contributing well-researched articles for journals such as American Biblical Repository and Bibliotheca Sacra. Topics included in these journals were well rounded and included hermeneutics, Old and New Testament exegesis, and Hebrew and Greek lexicography. Stuart also published six books on Hebrew and one on Greek grammar and syntax. He wrote commentaries on some of the most hermeneutically difficult books of the Bible, which include Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation. Moses Stuart mastered more than just the biblical languages. He translated at least five works from Latin or German bringing the total works that bear his name to over twenty-four.
With his mastery of language, Stuart is best known for his biblical interpretation. McKim notes three priorities throughout his professional lifetime shaped his biblical scholarship (McKim, 369-370). First priority was pedagogical. The apologetics and doctrinal system building of the eighteenth century had left a void in biblical philology and theology. Stuart had not escaped this void himself, as he was deficient in Hebrew upon taking the position at Andover. This deficiency might well have been a blessing in disguise. With the aid of Gesenius’ grammar, Stuart sought to develop an inductive approach to language replacing the rote learning previously required before biblical translation. After developing this approach for Hebrew, Stuart then applied the same methodology to Greek relying on Bultmann, Matthiae, and Winer.
The second priority was apologetic. With the advent of the Second Great Awakening also came contempt for learned clergy. He also was cognizant of the post-Enlightenment views of those such as Unitarianism proclaimed by William Channing. Stuart wrote a lengthy polemic letter against Channing’s rejection of the trinity in response. The apologetics proclaimed by Stuart were generally in response to German rationalism of which he had first hand experience. Much of his work contains implicitly the correction of these beliefs emanating from Germany. Even among this strong apologetic against German rationalism, Stuart seemed to carry a balanced approach. He refused to reject all European scholarship finding value through discernment of even the works he wrote against.
The third priority was biblical exposition. Stuart sought to propel the Gospel to the greatest heights possible and realized that language learning and teaching were foundational to reaching this end. Being an educator himself he sought to equip ministers of the Gospel to this end. He sought to develop expositional resources that would help students and pastors such as his six commentaries.
Moses Stuart should be remembered as a balanced scholar of biblical studies. He sought to make biblical studies a reality for all that wished to pursue it by developing cutting edge approaches to language learning of that period. Stuart also understood the value of discernment. He, unlike many of his contemporaries, engaged European scholars to understand them. Therefore, He was able to take all that was helpful in biblical hermeneutics while refusing all that was in conflict with doctrine held by him. Stuart was also balanced in his approach to life long learning. He did not specialize in one area of biblical interpretation; rather he sought to acquire a breadth of learning. His approach enabled him to understand the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament in a way others of his time could not. Many attributes of Stuart’s life might well be a mold to be pursued by those that follow him in academics today.

Blog Naming

We, my wife and I, are expecting our third child. Names for our children are unique but not of the nature that would get them a black eye on the playground or cost me therapy fees. I usually pride myself in being somewhat creative, but in naming this blog I came up empty, nothing, blocked. I initially thought, being a student of the Hebrew Scriptures, of playing on the phonetics of my name (pronounced the same as “able”) in relation to the first recorded murder in the Bible. However, where do you go with that? Abel of the Bible (Gen. 4) was a short-lived character and I didn’t want that reputation plaguing my blog.

Abell2Live reflects the truth found in the Scriptures which states, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,” - Col. 2:13. Only through Christ, the incarnate God, the living Word, are we made alive and enabled to live right choices that please our Creator.