Beware of Surface-Level Exegesis

In his excellent of Bart Ehrman's latest book Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, Michael Kruger identifies one of Ehrman's critical strategies: "Ehrman appeals to supposed theological and doctrinal disagreements between books as evidence that they could not be written by the same author." Kruger notes, "While Ehrman is an expert in textual criticism, it is clear that he is not as comfortable in the areas of biblical exegesis and systematic theology."

Here's an example. Ehrman highlights Ephesians 2:5–6, which teaches, "Even when we were dead through our trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ . . . and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places."

Ehrman strangely argues: "Here believers have experienced a spiritual resurrection . . . precisely the view that Paul argued against in his letter to the Corinthians!" (p. 111, emphasis his).

Kruger writes, "This surface-level exegesis, however, does not do justice to the complexities of Paul's thought."

Watch as Kruger patiently explains the verse in context. This is a helpful example of how and why we need to read the text carefully and charitably instead of settling for surface-level criticism.

The context of Eph 2:5–6 is not dealing with the resurrection at all, but with spiritual conversion. The fact that this passage uses the root word ζωοποιέω ("to make alive") does not necessarily mean it is referring to the resurrection because Paul uses this same term elsewhere to refer to conversion, namely in 2 Cor 3:6 and Gal 3:21 (both undisputed Pauline letters!).

Neither does describing believers as already seated with Christ in the heavenly places demonstrate that Ephesians teaches a non-bodily resurrection. Rather, such language is just another instance of Paul's already-but-not-yet theological paradigm. In Paul's mind, our present conversion is a down payment that guarantees our future place in heaven with Christ—so much so that he is able to speak of it as if it were, in some sense, already here.

Beyond all of this, are we really to think that early Christians would have widely affirmed the canonicity of Ephesians if it so plainly denied the bodily resurrection, one of the most cherished beliefs in early Christianity? Ehrman would have us believe that all early Christians (not to mention later Christians) were just too blind to notice such a thing until modern scholars have come along to point it out for them.

You can read the whole review .