Session 1
Dorothea H. Bertschmann, College of the Resurrection, Mirfield, ‘The interceding Spirit: Prayer and the limits of knowledge in Romans 8:26-27’
In Romans 8:26-27 Paul describes the pneuma twice as interceding for the believers. Though the idea might have parallels such as in Wisdom (Dodson) the statement is unique in the Corpus Paulinum in its description of the spirit as acting and speaking beyond inspiring human speech. The passage has been duly noted as strengthening the notion of the spirit as a person (Fee), which makes it easier to see it in parallel with Christ, who is also said to intercede for the believers in 8:34. This paper will explore the similarities and differences in both acts of interceding, arguing that unlike Christ in 8:34 the spirit’s interceding deals with a communication impasse at the limits of knowledge. The spirit’s interceding kata theon does not so much improve the believers’ prayers but shows the act of interceding as pleasing to God. In both instances of interceding Paul creates a ‘static dynamic’ between Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which navigates the tension between fully assured salvation and the concretely experienced threats to it.
Joshua Chan, University of Oxford, ‘When the Spirit Prays and the Mind Falters: Ancient Exegesis and the Question of Tongues as Languages in 1 Corinthians 14:14’
A central argument against interpreting the Corinthian tongues as actual human languages appeals to 1 Cor 14:14: “My spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” If, as recent scholarship (e.g., Tupamahu) contends, Paul regards tongues as human languages, how did early interpreters reconcile this verse with such a view? This paper explores the reception history of 1 Cor 14:14 to illuminate how ancient exegetes navigate this tension. One interpretive strand links the unfruitful mind to the lack of edifications (or fruits) produced among hearers. Another invokes linguistic hierarchies in antiquity, whereby languages such as Greek and Hebrew were deemed sacred and used without comprehension by non-Greek/Hebrew speakers. Notably, most Greek patristic commentators interpret “spirit” not as the human spirit or the Holy Spirit per se, but as a synecdochic reference to the spiritual gift (i.e. tongues) imparted by the Spirit. These early readings challenge modern assumptions and offer a more theologically nuanced understanding of tongues within early Christian thought.
Session 2
Joint session with Early Christianity on ‘the Four Last Things’
Session 3
Jonathan Rowlands, St Mellitus College, ‘The Spirit-led Interpretive Community: Reading Scripture in Conversation with Robert Jenson’
This paper offers a defence of Robert Jenson’s ‘creedal-critical exegesis’ (outlined in his 2009 Burns Lectures) by engaging issues of interpretive communities and pneumatological ecclesiology. Recent developments in literary theory have prompted much discussion about the nature of ‘interpretive communities’ and textual meaning. Rather than texts possessing a fixed, universal meaning, textual interpretation is contingent upon the shared assumptions and reading strategies of social groups. Elsewhere, much has been said about the church’s pneumatological ground; that the church is a creature of the Spirit. What does it mean to think of the church as a pneumatologically-grounded interpretive community with regards to Scripture? I argue the pneumatological ground of the church allows us to think meaningfully and substantively of the catholic church across time and space as the same ‘interpretive community’, with the creeds of the catholic church therefore providing the ‘shared assumptions’ of the church’s reading strategy as interpretive community. In other words, as Jenson argues, the creeds are the ‘critical theory’ of Scripture.
Laura J. Hunt, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, ‘Check for Breathing: The Metaphor of Birth John 3.1–21, 34’
This passage in the Gospel of John uses the word πνεῦμα six times. The NRSVue translates it four times as “Spirit,” once as “spirit,” and once as “wind.” But in the context of a metaphor about childbirth, it seems that translating πνεῦμα as “breath” ought to be considered, particularly in verse 8. Furthermore, attending to the metaphor of new birth throughout this passage clarifies the theology of flesh and spirit in John, not as antagonists but interdependent. Finally, the ancient use of “to come into the light” to describe birth (e.g. Plutarch, Mor. 496B) suggests that vv. 20–21 might best be read within the birth metaphor of the larger passage. Doing so gives this translation: For anyone who practices evil hates the light and refuses birth, so that his works might not be exposed, but he who does the truth is born, so that his works might be revealed because they are accomplished in God.