Category Archives: Interpretation

Christopher Seitz on ‘Canonical Reading and Hermeneutical Reflections’

Posted on by

Chapter eight of Christopher Seitz’s Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets is “worth the price of the entire book” (but my copy is used). The chapter is entitled “Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Canonical Reading and Hermeneutical Reflections.” Due to how the chapter is so concise, clear, and helpful, I plan to devote the next series of posts to insightful portions from Seitz.

He begins the chapter with quotes from Benjamin Jowett and Hermann Gunkel.

Jowett is quoted: “The true use of interpretation is to get rid of interpretation, and leave us alone in company with the author.”

Gunkel says, “If the contemporary readers wish to understand the prophets, they must entirely forget that the writings were collected in a sacred book centuries after the prophet’s work. The contemporary reader must not read their words as portions of the Bible but must attempt to place them in the context of the life of the people of Israel in which they were first spoken.”

Seitz then writes,

In these quotations we see a separation of text and author and a valorizing of man over text. In this chapter I want to reverse that trend (221).

So Which Interpretation is Right?

Posted on by

The canon is the ancient witness to what God has already accomplished and it is also the ongoing reminder of what He has yet to consummate. It is the covenant record of His past faithfulness and the unwavering promise of His faithfulness in that which is yet to come. What fits into this far exceeds the human conjectures of any interpretative community.

We must submit our (or any) interpretation of Scripture to the canon, that is, to the greater reality of what God is doing through Jesus Christ and by His Spirit.

Vanhoozer writes:

Dramatic fittingness with what God has done in Christ is the supreme criterion for truth, goodness, and beauty alike…

Christo-dramatic fittingness means canonical fittingness. We must think through the canon in order rightly to think about Jesus Christ. The standard of fittingness is specification of this “whole and complete” action. Sounds doctrine is distinguished from the dross of mere opinion only because the former accords with the commissioned testimony of the biblical authors and the latter does not.

Vanhoozer, Drama, 258

Thoughts on Authors, Texts, Intention, and Canonical Unity

Posted on by

Treier writes, “… the more focus placed on the human author (s) as opposed to the text (s), the more potentially problematic diversity one seems to find” (Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture, 113).

Okay. This is right. Dealing with authors primarily individualizes texts and books and therefore blurs the unity of the Bible. There are different languages, styles, concepts. This is an obvious result of the grammatical-historical approach and was counter-acted by the redemptive-historical approach (111).

But what if, in some way, the diversity of the Bible is part of its unity in that it was not absent in the mind of the authors as they penned the individual books? Can we understand inspiration to involve some grasp of the human authors that they were working in the midst of a more holistic project? If you say no, then why not?

The individual biblical authors understood the meaning of the canon as they wrote their individual books. A high view of God, of Scripture, of inspiration could lead to such an assumption, or presupposition.  And it is one that I do not think is careless to affirm.

On Study Bibles and Hermeneutical Propagation

Posted on by

“Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theorectical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text which it is interpreting, it will remain restricted–as it deserves to be–to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred.”

David C. Steinmetiz, The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis in  ”The Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” 37

(On that restriction part)… The historical-critical method would be inherently restricted because it requires tools that the average Christian does not have. But, then again, that is why we have the ‘Study Bible.’

The Geneva Bible may have been the first, and it was a little more explicit in its endeavor to propagate a particular way of reading. Yet, in a similar way, all study bibles exist because they necessitate a way of reading the Bible that is inaccessible to the average Christian. They seek to overcome a felt restriction. And for the large part, they have enjoyed success in the evangelical world.

In the South, that would explain why good-ole’-simple church folk of my grandfather’s generation know the word “dispensation.”

On Brian Brock’s ‘Singing the Ethos of God’

Posted on by

I can’t read another book right now. One book at a time demands enough of me. That is okay.

This morning I casually opened up a newer book that a friend recommended that I purchase and read–Singing the Ethos of God: On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture by Brian Brock. I folded back the paperback and planned to just browse. The browse became a perusing as I settled into the Introduction. My guard was up, in a discernible and generous way. But initial uneasiness dissolved into doxology as I read on. My soul was moved to worship, to the praise of God in Christ. This page glows of yellow highlight…

In the final analysis, it is not our historical or moral distance from the Bible that renders it foreign to us, nor the gap between time and eternity, but the gap between the ways of God and those of humanity. God is not foreign to us on some general criterion, but as another person: it is precisely in God’s incarnation that God’s difference from us becomes visible (John 1:14). The Psalms are foreign because they open into the manifold life of the trinitarian God; and this conclusion allows us to theologically clarify how they are foreign. The foreignness proper to faith is an eschatological foreignness. Christ is the chorus of a new song that, in its announcement of good news to the world, unleashes a critical impulse within history. Singers are made “strangers and aliens” in a rebellious world by having their eyes opened to the profundity of the Godhead and the perfection of God’s works…

In being part of God’s path to us, Scripture is foreign with Christ’s foreignness, but not a stranger that we cannot come to know, not an otherworldly alien… Its foreignness finds its origin in God’s inexhaustible holiness rather than Scripture’s effectiveness as a moral source of guide. Because it is outside us, the verbam externum, it can, as gospel, console and teach us.

Brian Brock, Singing the Ethos of God, xvf

Sola Scriptura is Something You Do

Posted on by

The Bible is both the authoritative version of the drama of redemption and the authoritative script for the church’s ongoing life. As a collection of authoritative stage directions for performing the Christian way of life in the truth, the script calls not only for responsive reading but for responsive action and embodiment. The script demands to be played out; the literary forms of Scripture call for forms of life. Sola scriptura is ultimately the name of a practice to be performed by the church in the power of the Spirit.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 115

A Hermeneutical Mongrel

Posted on by

Treier says of the canonical-linguistic approach, “it is more text- than author-centered” (115). I don’t think there is a dichotomy there. I am not willing to drive a wedge between the ‘text’ and the ‘author’s intention.’ And at the same time I want to criticize biblical criticism.

I really like Vanhoozer’s Drama of Doctrine. I really like his canonical-linguistic approach. I do not want to get lost in exegesis to the point that I forget the miraculous nature of the Bible… that it is God making Himself known, that it is for the church now and part of the economy of the gospel.

And I don’t want to give up that the Bible is God making Himself known in words, it is Scripture. Words are symbols that convey meaning. And it is not meaning that is arbitrary or in ignorance. They were selected on purpose.  And God made it happen that way. He shows us Jesus Christ in words.

Sailhoozer is where I am settling. I’ll keep reading…

Get the Point

Posted on by

Forms of exegesis that treat the biblical texts as data rather than as bearers of divine discourse are distinctly undramatic.

Consider Jesus’ “exegesis” of God the Father (John 1:18), by way of contrast. One can study the life of Jesus from a number of angles, to be sure, but if one misses this one–his making God the Father known–one misses what is arguably the whole point. A similar point could be made with regard to the Gospels, which are theological “exegeses” of Jesus. Again, it is possible to read the Gospels from a number of angles, and for a variety of purposes; but if one misses their theological interpretation of Jesus Christ, one misses what is arguably the whole point. Herein is the suspense of the drama of reading: Will readers find or miss “the Way”?

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 20f

Not Solomon, but He is Coming: The Theology of Expectation in 1 Kings 8

Posted on by

This section plays an important role within the narrative strategy of 1 & 2 Kings. The focus is undoubtedly on the Messiah. First, I want to show that it is Messianic. Second, I want to show what is said about the Messiah. 

The broad context has the end of 2 Samuel in mind. King David has died and now the concern is the son of David who will succeed him as king. We see early on that it is Solomon (2:12). Solomon builds the temple (2 Sam 7:13). Here in chapter 8, Solomon has assembled Israel to bless them and dedicate the temple. Now there are three connected themes at work here to be clear that this text is about the Messiah: 1) Recalling the Davidic covenant; 2) Exile, Repentance, New Covenant language (back to Pentateuch); and 3) Conversion of the Nations

It goes like this…

1)     Recalling the Davidic Covenant (8:12-21)

  1. Solomon interprets his building of the temple to be the fulfillment of God’s promise to David in 2 Sam 7
  2. He views himself as this son that it talked about (8:20, 24-26)

2)     Exile, Repentance, New Covenant

  1. It is interesting the in a dedication of the temple there is so much said of the people’s sin and God’s faithfulness to forgive (8:30, 31-40). And even exile (8:44-53).
  2. This echoes the Pentateuch.

    1. First, the steadfast love and faithfulness of God (Exod 34:7) foundational to his prayer for mercy.
    2. Second, the reference to exile (8:34, 44-53) sounds like Deut. 30:1-6. The point there is New Covenant.

3)     Worship of the Nations

  1. There is the mention of the foreigner in 8:41-43, 60.
  2. This is reminiscent of Gen. 49:10…

 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

 These themes are thoroughly Messianic. The author is trying to make this clear to his reader. He wants us to have the Messiah in our minds and the expectation of his arrival the beat of our hearts.

In line with that, he wants to show us that Solomon is not the guy.

This is especially seen in 8:25. In hope that he is the one, Solomon rehearses the Davidic covenant (the Messiah as a Son of David reigning on his throne as King). He understands the stipulations of this King, “if only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.” There are conditions.

Where else are there stipulations for the King?

 

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

1 Kings 10-11

Not acquire excessive gold (v. 17)

10:14-18

Not acquire many horses (v. 16)

10:26-29

Not acquire many wives (v. 17)

11:1-3, 6

So it is not Solomon, nor any other King of Judah in 1 Kings (14:31, 15:8, 24). There is clear expectation. The author’s eyes are in the future. That the Son who is King is not Solomon is important. The theology of expectation is important. Psalm 72 picks up this theology in a prayer looking to the King.

So what?

Old Testament expectation puts into perspective the wonder of the church. It clarifies our self-understanding. That we worship Jesus Christ right now is the fulfillment of God’s promise (Psa 72:17). Thousands of years after it was written. They looked for Him and now He has come. Now we are seated here together, Gentiles who worship the Messiah, who bless the LORD—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We are Gentiles who though we were far have been brought near by the blood of Christ!

The LORD is glorious.

Bob Stein, Hermeneutics, and Time Travel

Posted on by

time-machine4web

Yesterday at Table Talk we received a treat in Robert Stein. He joined us around the table as he shared (from a 74 year-old perspective!) a little from his life as a New Testament scholar. It was a delight to hear from him. Dr. Stein is the quintessential grandfather figure. He is wise and clear and jolly, all at the same time. I would have loved to study under him.

He told us about his academic journey and had some really good things to say about hermeneutics–where he stands and how he got there in the midst of other currents of thought. It was really interesting to hear about his time at Bethel Seminary many years ago. He told us about the outside-of-the-classroom faculty discussions concerning E.D. Hirsch and hermeneutics… this is a young faculty which at that time included John Sailhamer and John Piper (two men of whom I admire and have been deeply influenced).

Now if time travel were real, I would go back and sit in on one of those talks.

Dr. Stein also told me that his wife was Dr. Sailhamer’s sixth grade teacher. This was a really neat Table Talk.