Theological Interpretation

Beale’s Method

/ Matt Emerson / 2 Comments

Picture from Amazon.com

I’m currently reading through G. K. Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology and it is phenomenal. I’ve always loved Beale’s work, particularly because he is one of the few scholars I know that can weave biblical studies and theology together almost seamlessly. He is, in my opinion, the epitome of a biblical theologian. It’s no surprise to me, then, that I love every page I read out of this book.

One thing, though, that I find the most commonality with in Beale’s work is his consistent method. In both The Temple and the Church’s Mission and We Are What We Worship, Beale demonstrates an ability to both see the big picture of the entire Bible and exegete particular texts in their original context. He thus can study the individual trees without losing sight of the forest. Just as importantly, he can look at the whole forest without forgetting it is made up of individual trees.

Beale articulates this method in the following way in his new book (p. 15):

. . . I categorize my biblical-theological approach to be canonical, genetic-progressive (or organically developmental, as a flower develops from a seed and bud), exegetical, and intertextual. This approach could be summarized as a ‘biblical-theological-oriented exegesis.’

What I’ve seen from Beale in previous works is still here (canonical, exegetical, and intertextual), but the genetic-progressive element, while not new to him, is most explicitly articulated and applied here. This to me is an especially helpful addition, both for constructive use in my own understanding and application of biblical theology and also negatively as a counter to the way “progressive revelation” is sometimes articulated. Often I hear proponents of “progressive revelation” arguing that we can only understand texts like Gen. 3:15 as Adam and Eve (or more properly Israel on the plains of Moab) or other original hearers would have heard them. For Gen. 3:15, then, we cannot teach or preach it with the fullness that we might preach Romans 1-5 in terms of the robustness of the gospel. But what Beale is arguing is that although Gen. 3:15 does not explicitly relate the entire gospel, it is like a seed of a flower that will eventually blossom into, and thus implicitly contains, the entire gospel.

Like the rest of the book, I find that particularly helpful.

Patristic Reception of the book of the Twelve Prophets

/ Luke Wisley / 1 Comment

The last few years has shown a great interest in the reception history of single texts, biblical books, and even entire portions of the canon. There have been great books and commentary series devoted to such studies. Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers by Chris Hall, the Ancient Christian Commentary Series edited by Thomas Oden, and the new Reformation Commentary Series edited by Timothy George are a couple examples. These and other such work highlights that interpreters through history were asking different questions than those asked of the present and can help show our interpretive “blind spots.”

This post involves the early church’s reception of what many call the Minor Prophets. In my research I was interested in the reception of the collection of the Minor Prophets. So, did the early church recognize the Minor Prophets as a single book or are the Minor Prophets twelve individual books? I have around 60 pages worth of notes regarding the early church and the Minor Prophets found in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers edited by Philip Schaff, below is a brief sampling:

Of these and such like words written by the prophets, O Trypho,” said I, “some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold (Justin’s Dialogue Chapter XIV).

And Zechariah also, among the twelve prophets, pointing out to the people the will of God, says: “These things does the Lord Omnipotent declare: Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion each one to his brother (Irenaeus Against Heresies Chapter XVII).

For it is expressly said by Joel, one of thetwelve prophets, “And it shall come to pass after these things, I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Clement of Alexandria The Knowledge of God a Divine Gift, According to the Philosophers Chapter XIII).

The prophecy of Isaiah is not in the book of the twelve prophets, who are called the minor from the brevity of their writings, as compared with those who are called the greater prophets because they published larger volumes (Augustine Chapter 29.—What Things are Predicted by Isaiah Concerning Christ and the Church).

And this is in common language so unprecedented, or at least so rare, that we are only convinced that the twelve Prophets made one book, because we read in like manner, “As it is written in the book of the Prophets.” There are some too who call all the canonical Scriptures together one book, because they agree in a very wondrous and divine unity.…(Augustine On the Psalms–Psalm CL).

Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras (Eusebius Pamphilus 206, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers).

The majority of what I found was that the early church recognized the Minor Prophets as a unity, some going so far calling it a single book despite the lack of any type of codex existing. At this point I have not seen in the Fathers an approach to read the Minor Prophets as a book but I was intrigued by how many references there were to the entire collection.




.

Proverbs, Wisdom, and the Land

/ Matt Emerson / 1 Comment

Let me begin by saying that I’m not a Proverbs scholar, and so what I’m about to say probably has already been said many times. But I thought I’d bring it up anyway.

I’m reading through Proverbs both for devotional purposes and because I’m currently teaching a class on the Latter Prophets and Writings. I’m through chapter 11 at this point, and I continue to notice language about wisdom as it relates to the land and exile, all couched in eschatological terms.

Positively, Prov. 3:1-4, 6:20-23, all seem to refer to 7:1-5 the promises of Deuteronomy (and especially ch. 6) concerning the wisdom of obeying the commandments of the Law and the corresponding result of long life and living in the land. They also, though, appear to reference the new covenant, as each of these sections not only promises long life and dwelling in the land through obedience but obedience through the giving of God’s spirit.

Negatively 2:20-22, and especially v. 22 (“cut off from the land”) implies exile for the foolish (or wicked), and this exile is related to following the adulteress in 2:16-19. This section immediately precedes 3:1-4 and warnings against the adulteress are found in the other two positive promises of 6:20-23 and 7:1-, thus linking those sections with exile as well as the new covenant.

Exile further appears to be in view in 1:24-27, as the promise of God to laugh at the calamity of foolish Israel sounds like the prophets and Lamentations. Lady Folly and her call to adultery is also reminiscent of the prophets and especially their language of idolatry and the resulting exile.

What I’m concluding from this, at least for now, is that the instruction in Proverbs is not just about wise living, but wisdom through the eschatological promises of God to pour out his Spirit (e.g. 1:23) in the new covenant. Historical Israel is used as a negative example of idolatry and adultery (cf. also 10:30), resulting in exile, while future Israel and the land are used as promises and figurative imagery.

I also think that there is quite a bit of creation language here – Prov. 8 is obvious, of course, but I’m really thinking more about the ability to discern good and evil, the resulting blessings and cursings, and the use of “tree of life” (3:18; 11:30). These are also put in an escahtological light by reminding the reader not only of what happened originally to Adam and Israel through these allusions but also what will happen in eternity (e.g. 11:4, 6-10, 19-21, 23).

Thoughts?

Great is Thy Faithfulness?

/ Luke Wisley / 1 Comment

I wanted to highlight a recent project that came out in November. The book is an edited volume on the book of Lamentations entitled, Great is Thy Faithfulness: Reading Lamentations as Sacred Scripture (Pickwick) edited by Robin A. Parry and Heath A. Thomas. Heath is a friend of mine and has a steady stream of projects in the queue for the next couple of years–you’ve been warned (in a good way).

The book seeks to assist the reader in how to read Lamentations as Scripture. Personally, I do not know if I’ve ever heard a sermon based on a text from Lamentations let alone Lamentations even used as a cross reference. To this, Parry and Thomas write:

Lamentations has never had a place of honor at the table of Christian spirituality. It is not one of those texts that everyone wants to converse with—a John’s Gospel, an Exodus, an Isaiah, a Romans. It is one of those texts people feel uncomfortable around, not quite sure what to do with. Indeed, were it left to us, it may well not have had a place at the table at all. Rather, like the desolate character of Lady Jerusalem sitting alone as people pass by on the other side of the road (Lam 1), the book of Lamentations itself has been passed by, ignored by the other guests (xiii).

Great is Thy Faithfulness is a welcomed contribution to the dinner party described. One strength about this project is that it addresses Lamentations from Jewish, Messianic Jewish, Christian, and Artistic/Contemporary reception history. This becomes an ideal work to show how reception history can help inform and shape the way the church approaches Lamentations as a word from God.

The need of the project is coupled by essays from accomplished scholars. Part 1 begins with a chapter from Heath Thomas (Southeastern Seminary) on the interplay of Scripture and Hermeneutics followed by Part 2 with a chapter on the theology of Lamentations by Paul House (Beeson Divinity School). Part 2 then proceeds with Jewish reception history,  with essays from:

Lamentations in Isaiah 40-55 by Lena-Sophia Tiemeyer (Kings College, Aberdeen)

The Character and Significance of LXX Lamentations by Kevin J. Youngblood (Harding University)

Targum Lamentations by Christian M.M. Brady (Penn State University)

Lamentations Rabbati by Jacob Neusner (Bard College)

Introduction to Rashi’s Commentary on Lamentations by Mayer I. Gruber (Gurion University)

Lamentations in Jewish Liturgy by Elsie R. Stern (Reconstructionist Rabbinical College)

Lamentations in Modern Jewish Thought by Zachary Braiterman (Syracuse University)

Following Jewish reception history is a chapter on Lamentations in Messianic Jewish reception history.  Holocaust Theology in the Light of Yeshua? Messianic Jewish Reception of Eikah by Richard Harvey (All Nations College)

After Messianic Jewish reception history is Lamentations in Christian reception history with essays by:

Lamentations in the Patristic Period by Heath Thomas (Southeastern Seminary)

Christian Interpretation of Lamentations in the Middle Ages by David Hogg (Beeson Divinity School)

John Calvin’s Interpretation of Lamentations by Pete Wilcox (Canon Chancellor at Lichfield Cathedral)

Lamentations for the Lord: Great and Holy Friday in the Greek Orthodox Church by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou

Lamentations and Christian Worship by Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ (Heythrop College, University of London)

Part 2 ends with a section on Artistic and Contemporary reception:

Musical Responses to Lamentations by  F. Jane Schopf (Rose Bruford College)

Lamentations in Rembrandt van Rijn: “Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem”  by Heath A. Thomas (Southeastern Seminary)

Psychological Approaches to Lamentations by Paul Joyce (St. Peter’s College, University of Oxford)

Feminist Interpretation(s) of Lamentations by Heath A. Thomas (Southeastern Seminary)

Part 3 of Great is Thy Faithfulness is a chapter by Robin Parry (Wipf and Stock Publishers) on Wrestling with Lamentations in Christian Worship.

Part 4 is a chapter on pastoral theology with Confession and Complaint: Christian Pastoral Reflections on Lamentations by Ian Stackhouse (Senior Pastor of Guildford Baptist Church).

Great is Thy Faithfulness is a needed volume for the field and is worthwhile to anyone who wishes to read Lamentations theologically. You can purchase the book here.

Hermeneutical Foundations

/ Matt Emerson / 6 Comments

First… I’m a horrible blogger. I know. This happens every time I try to start blogging. Some major event completely derails my futile attempts to maintain a steady writing pace. In this case, it was moving cross-country from NC to CA to start teaching at CBU; a magnanimous and happy event in my life, but one that nonetheless has prevented me from blogging here.

Ok now that my necessary confession is over… I’ve been thinking about hermeneutics (shocker).

I’m teaching Biblical Interpretation right now, and it’s been great fun watching the students interact with biblical material and challenging them to think well about hermeneutics. In the process of teaching the class, we’ve run into a number of issues in current hermeneutical studies, including the role of the canon, the locus of meaning, and just method in general.

Obviously, these debates aren’t just happening in the classroom; they are happening in evangelicalism at large. And it seems to me that the debate over proper hermeneutics is what is defining evangelicalism in the 21st century. Now, some may object with the fact that it appears that the relationship between science and faith is what is defining evangelicalism, or perhaps how the church handles social issues. But aren’t these issues fundamentally rooted in hermeneutics? How we understand the nature of story in the Bible underscores how we articulate the relationship between Genesis 1-3 (or is it 1-11 now?) and the origin of the earth. How we understand the ethical commands as well as the nature of humanity articulated in the Bible is a matter of hermeneutics, and influences where we stand on social issues.

The point is, hermeneutical method underpins most of the dialogue and debates happening in evangelicalism today. That being said, as I look through all the books I’ve ordered but not yet read ( 🙂 ) I’ve noticed a few distinct areas of hermeneutics that seem to be particular fertile ground for dialogue and debate. These include the role, function, and purpose in hermeneutics of:

  • Narrative
  •  Canon
  • Tradition
  • History of Interpretation (both methods and conclusions)
  • Doctrine

Do you agree that hermeneutics is the foundational issue in many other issues today in evangelicalism? Would you add anything else to that list of current issues in hermeneutics?

Scriptural Hermeneutics

/ Matt Emerson / 3 Comments

This is an excellent quote from Richard Hays on hermeneutics after exegeting 2 Cor 3:1-4:6 in Echoes of Scripture, ch. 4:

The meaning of Scripture is enacted in the Christian community, and only those who participate in the enactment can understand the text. Consequently, the transformation of the community is not the presupposition but also the result and proof of true interpretation. Where God’s spirit is at work, the community (“we all”) is being transformed into the image of Christ and liberated to see, when they read Scripture, that the old covenant prefigured precisely this transformation. (Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 152)

The quote sums up a number of what I consider to be essential characteristics of a biblically grounded hermeneutic:

  1. Textual – A Christian reading of the Bible pays attention to the words, sentences, paragraphs and books of the Bible in detail (this is not explicit in the quote but it is from the context of the entire chapter)
  2. Pneumatological – A Christian reading of the Bible is rooted in a recognition of the Spirit’s inspiration of the text and in a reliance on the Spirit for understanding (illumination)
  3. Christotelic – A Christian reading of the Bible understands that the purpose of the Scriptures is not only to reveal Christ but to transform his church into his image through the Spirit
  4. Communal – A Christian reading of the Bible takes place in the context of the community of the faithful, the church
  5. Transformational – A Christian reading of the Bible is not only concerned with information but with transformation, namely into the image of Christ
  6. Holistic – A Christian reading of the Bible regards both the Old and New Testaments as the true, complementary, and complete revelation of God through Christ that are to be read in the above ways

Am I missing anything else?

Historical Adam 2.0

/ Matt Emerson / 6 Comments

Kevin DeYoung has asked a similar question to mine about the historical Adam. Essentially his point is that in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles there is no indication from the author that part of the record is mythological or figurative while the rest is historical. You can check it out here.

Just another side note on this issue: after my first post on this a friend questioned whether or not the biblical narrative can be more than history. His question was, in other words, whether the biblical text does more than just relate historical events. My answer was of course yes – the Scriptures are the inspired interpretation of the historical events of God and his people. But that does not make them a- or un-historical. We can recognize both the historical veracity of the biblical record and the inspired interpretation that the Scriptures provide of those events. So when I say “there is no indication from the author that part of the record is mythological or figurative while the rest is historical,” I am not in any way intending to separate the biblical authors’ ability to both relate historical events accurately and interpret history in theologically meaningful ways, but am actually trying to argue that these two things are not separable in Scripture. One can recognize the Bible’s historical accuracy and its ability (or, even stronger, its intention) to interpret history at the same time.

Where in the NT are Joseph and Joshua?

/ Matt Emerson / 11 Comments

Image from Wikipedia

A few weeks ago at Near Emmaus, Brian LePort asked an intriguing question: Why didn’t the Apostle Paul cite the Book of Jonah? The question fueled some conversation but I’m not sure there was ever a definitive answer. Although I didn’t weigh in on the discussion, I’ve been turning the question over in my mind for the last two or three weeks, not so much in relation to why Paul doesn’t cite Jonah but more broadly on why the NT doesn’t use a number of books as sources or figures as types. Jonah is at least cited and used in the Gospels, if not by Paul. Other rich OT imagery isn’t even mentioned by the NT.

For instance, Joseph and Joshua, two figures replete with Second Adam and New Moses imagery, are never cited, mentioned, or alluded to in the NT as types of Christ. They are referenced in Heb 11:21-22 and 4:8 respectively, but as moral examples and not as figures who point to or tell us anything about Christ (thanks to David Stark for clarifying my language here). These men give, at least in my opinion, a strong typological picture of Christ. Of course, some scholars would say that to recognize anything as a type in the OT that is not recognized as such in the NT is illegitimate. But, as G. P. Hupenberger points out in his essay “Introductory Notes in Typology” in G.K. Beale’s The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?,

“Perhaps as a safeguard against interpretive excess, some scholars have suggested that ‘types’ should be limited to those examples which are explicitly identified as such within the New Testament. … While attractive for its restraint, this approach would fail to recognize several…examples for which there is impressive literary evidence of deliberate parallelism” (339).

The literary parallels between Adam and Joseph are particularly striking. Here are several:

  • He is dependent upon God for wisdom and power (Gen 41:16)
  • He discerns between good and evil (41:19)

    1. The word for “thin” is the same word used for “evil” in Hebrew
    2. V. 22 – “good” corn
    3. These should remind us of Gen. 2 and 3 and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
    4. Joseph can discern between them, unlike Adam
  • He is full of the Spirit of God (41:38)
  • He has dominion and authority over the land under the direction of the Pharaoh (41:40, 44)
  • He is given the land (41:41, 43)
  • He is clothed in the image of the Pharaoh (41:42)
  • He is given a bride by the Pharaoh (41:45)
  • He is fruitful and multiplies (41: 50)
  • Ephraim means “root of fruitfulness
  • He is able to provide for those in need (41:53-56)
  • The nations come to Joseph (41:57)

There are also of course the parallels between Joseph’s relationship to his brothers in Gen 37 and Christ’s relationship with Israel in the Gospels, but these are not directly related to Joseph as a New Adam.

We could say the same thing about Joshua and his connection to Moses. And since the New Adam and New Moses images are used in the NT (or at least in parts of it) to explain who Christ is and what he has done, the question can be asked as to why Joshua and Joseph are never used in those explanations. I wonder particularly about Matthew’s use of the New Moses theme and Paul’s contrast of Adam and Christ in Romans 1-8.

For me, though, there is a rather simple explanation to this question. Other than the easy answer of the Spirit’s inspiration of the biblical authors (and I’m not saying we should ignore that answer, just that we need to add to it), we have the functional answer of the fact that the NT authors were writing occasional books and letters to a specific group of individuals within a certain time frame. I propose that they certainly could have included this material in their books, and that it would have fit nicely in certain places. But they didn’t, and for the above two reasons – the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire them to do so and their own theological reflection was constrained by the practical factors of time, occasion, and purpose.

For those of us who want to reflect on the OT in the 21st century, the point, then, is that the NT should not be considered by us as the end of Christian reflection on it. It is of course the final apostolic and Spirit-inspired reflection (i.e. Scriptural) reflection on it, but in my mind the NT authors never intended for their books and letters to be the end of Christian engagement with the OT. What they have given us, beyond the inspired interpretation of the events of Jesus and the early church and their relation to the OT, is a model for Christian theological reflection on the Hebrew Bible. This is what the Church Fathers and Medieval theologians set about to do – to continue the Christian reading of the OT that had been modeled for them by the NT authors – and is what we can and should be about doing in our reading of the OT today.

One final comment: I’m not writing this to critique Brian’s question – his was slightly different than mine. I was using his post more as a starting point than as a focal point.

(NOTE: I owe the Adam/Joseph parallels to my PhD mentor, Dr. David Hogg. He may have found them elsewhere, but the ones I noted are from a course with him.)