Bible Interpretation: No Fixed Rules

Luther:

I acknowledge no fixed rules for the interpretation of the Word of God, since the Word of God, which teaches freedom in all other matters, must not be bound.

—The Freedom of the Christian (Luther's Works, vol. 31; ed. Harold J. Grimm; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), 341.

Interpreting James

How shall we interpret the book of James? Among other things that could be said (say, for example, about the genre of James), here is an important word from one of my former professors:

Perhaps no greater mistake can be made in interpreting James than to read his letter in the light of Paul. James, we must remember, is writing . . . before Paul had written any of his letters and probably has no direct knowledge of Paul's teaching. James must be read against the background of the OT, Judaism, and the teaching of Jesus—not the apostle Paul. 

—Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 83.

Following Christ in Handling Genesis

Speaking of how to approach the opening chapters of Genesis, Henri Blocher says this:

We must approach the opening chapters of Genesis as inspired texts, rich with the truth of God, clothed with the authority of God. We must also, in order to understand them better, make use of the harmony of the Scriptures. We must take advantage of the common inspiration, bringing other passages to illumine the difficulties. That we shall do. We shall trust the method of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to "the analogy of faith." How could we reject that method if we claim to follow Christ?

—In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, transl. David G. Preston (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 17.

Were the Apostles Good Expositors and Exegetes?

R. T. France:

It may be something of a surprise to those brought up in the tradition of biblical exposition to find that the biblical writers themselves do not often seem to use other biblical texts in the same way that we have come to use their own writings. In particular, extended exposition of Old Testament passages in an expository fashion does not seem to be a characteristic of most of the New Testament writers.

—"The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor," TynBul 47 (1996):245–76.

A Successful Hermeneutic: Confirmed by Scripture Itself

"A successful hermeneutic is a consistent interpretative procedure yielding a consistent understanding of Scripture that in turn confirms the propriety of the procedure itself."

—Packer, J. I., Celebrating the Saving Work of God: The Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 9–10.

A Two-Way Process at Work, Yielding a Double Benefit

Christopher J. H. Wright on whole-Bible methodology:

When we take the Old Testament history seriously in relation to its completion in Jesus Christ, a two-way process is at work, yielding a double benefit in our understanding of the whole Bible. On the one hand, we are able to see the full significance of the Old Testament story in the light of where it leads—the climactic achievement of Christ; and on the other hand, we are able to appreciate the full dimensions of what God did through Christ in the light of his historical declarations and demonstrations of intent in the Old Testament.

—Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 33.

Hermeneutical Myopia in Centuries of Scholarship

In an introductory chapter on "a literary approach to Old Testament theology" in his book Dominion and Dynasty, Stephen Dempster speaks of the "hermeneutical myopia of the last few centuries of biblical scholarship." This hermeneutical myopia has come about through "presuppositions that magnify the texts and minimize the Text. One of the philosophical assumptions that has produced this situation has been a diminution in the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. . . ."

Dempster continues, saying that there has been "an enchantment with the minute details of the biblical text rather than with its more global features, which ipso facto cannot exist. The concern for studying smaller and smaller sections of the biblical text and the increasing specialization of scholars studying the minutiae of philology and morphology have resulted in a loss of perspective." [1]

I've found this to be commonplace in my dealings with biblical scholarship. In an effort to take the human authors seriously (so they say), extremely bright PhD types forget the Author behind the authors and the whole larger work—the whole canon, the big Book of which the smaller books are but chapters. So the Text of which Dempster speaks is the whole Bible. And the texts (individual books) are not rightly understood, more strongly stated, are distorted and twisted if it is not considered how they are to be understood in the light of the larger narrative framework provided by Genesis through Revelation. 

---

[1] Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 28.

How to Do Biblical Theology Evangelically and Doxologically

Regarding what biblical theology is, many have commented, even lamented, that the definitions on offer abound. Paul R. Williamson proffers one helpful and faithful way of thinking about biblical theology evangelically, to which I recently referred in another post. I reproduce it here again: 

Biblical theology is arguably best thought of as a holistic enterprise tracing unfolding theological trajectories throughout Scripture and exploring no biblical concept, theme, or book in isolation from the whole. Rather, each concept, theme, or book is considered ultimately in terms of how it contributes to and advances the Bible's meta-narrative . . . .[1]

Williamson’s definition comports well with a number of the emphases of other definitions given,[2] and it picks up a number of important elements that should be included in doing biblical theology. An evangelical biblical theology should be theological, holistic, whole-Bible, synthetic, follow Scripture’s storyline, and follow Scriptures own trajectories. After briefly discussing these key elements, I'll also go beyond Williams' definition and add two other essentials.

It should be theological because the Bible is primarily revelation about God, about his person, works, ways, and words. 

It should be holistic in that it takes into account the Bible’s historical and literary dimensions, that is, it considers genre, literary devices, linguistic features, historical methods, and the like. 

It should be whole-Bible since the Bible ultimately has one Author and one Mind behind it. In other words, the OT should not be sealed off from the NT, nor vice versa. The Bible is therefore understood as a unity—without sacrificing its diversity!—and neither the OT nor the NT is rightly fully understood apart from the other (even though each has its distinctive voice and distinctive contributions). 

Dovetailing with this whole-Bible emphasis, evangelical biblical theology should be synthetic. That is, it should seek to relate the distinctive and diverse parts of the Bible “to uncover all that holds them together,” all the while maintaining and not muting “the glorious diversity of the biblical documents.”[3] 

It should consider the Bible’s metanarrative as well.[4] Whatever else the Bible is, it is certainly a story with a definite beginning and ending. In between the beginning and ending comes progression or development or expansion of various sorts—embedded in a breathtaking array of literary variety. In this vein, evangelical biblical theology will take into account the Bible’s chronology in thinking about how the parts relate and develop theologically. In this regard, it ought to attempt “to uncover and understand how words and themes in earlier canonical texts are used in later canonical texts.”[5] 

Moreover, it will seek to follow trajectories warranted by Scripture itself, that is, by discerning aright what Scripture is and what it is doing, in its parts, and as a whole. This relates to the emphasis on following the Bible’s chronological storyline as words and concepts are traced across God’s covenant and redemptive revelation. These words and concepts or themes are traced when warrant is discerned in the text for doing so. 

So an interpreter trying to do sound biblical theology will want to provide canonical reasons for tracing out a text along a proposed trajectory. There are no infallible methods for doing this tracing, but warrant ought to be provided for one’s choice. A reasonable and reasoned warrant might include, for example, discerning key words or concepts deployed in similar contexts; or it might include, for example, discerning a later development of an earlier text that is part of the later text’s illocution.[6] 

Now not all of these elements in Williams’ definition and similar definitions need be emphasized equally when looking at a given chunk of text. As already stated, the text itself should set the agenda. But given that any given text is part of a larger Text, these elements will be likely emphases in doing biblical theology. 

Moreover, and I judge this to be all-important, what is not included explicitly in Williams’ definition, and what is often missing in treatments of biblical theology today, is that an evangelical biblical theology—because it is theological—ought to be not only descriptive, but also prescriptive and confessional.[7] I would even be prepared to argue that everything else that has been said about what biblical theology ought to be and do must aim at this prescribing and confessing. Otherwise, the biblical theology ceases to be biblical, and is worse than worthless.

[1] Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 17.
[2] See, for example, Carson, "Systematic and Biblical Theology," NDBT, 100-101; and B. S. Rosner, “Biblical Theology,” NDBT, 10.
[3] Carson, NDBT, 100-101.
[4] The OT is not the whole story, nor is the NT the whole story. The OT and NT together tell God’s whole story and together provide the full revelation of God.
[5] Carson, NDBT, 101.
[6] Richard Schultz sets forth a helpful way for working out the theological themes across the canon. See “Integrating Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Literary, Thematic, and Canonical Issues,” in vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (ed. Willem A. VanGemeren; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 185-205; see also Carson, NDBT, 97-98.
[7] For example, Carson notes this, NDBT, 101.

Making Texts Do Little Poodle Tricks?

Over at Blag and Mablog, Doug Wilson helpfully describes the task of systematic theology:

Systematic theology is nothing less than remembering what you read in other passages while you are reading this passage. The kind of thing that gives systematic theology a bad name is remembering what you thought other passages said, privileging them in some form of special pleading, and making the verse in front of you do little poodle tricks.

The whole post, which addresses the reality of the faithful and unfaithful within the same Church, may be found here.

The Psalter's Very Special Grace

From the Letter of St. Athanasius to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms:

Among all the books [of the Bible], the Psalter has certainly a very special grace, a choiceness of quality well worthy to be pondered; for, besides the characteristics which it shares with others, it has this peculiar marvel of its own, that within it are represented and portrayed in all their great variety the movements of the human soul. It is like a picture, in which you see yourself portrayed and, seeing, may understand and consequently form yourself upon the pattern given. Elsewhere in the Bible you read only that the Law commands this or that to be done, you listen to the Prophets to learn about the Saviour's coming or you turn to the historical books to learn the doings of the kings and holy men; but in the Psalter, besides all these things, you learn about yourself. You find depicted in it all the movements of your soul, all its changes, its ups and downs, its failures and recoveries.

—St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation (ed. and transl. A Religious of C.S.M.V.; New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1993), 103.

Doing Theology Today

With great wisdom and insight, John Frame speaks to the state of affairs in doing theology today:

I think theology today has become preoccupied by these auxiliary disciplines to the extent of neglecting its primary responsibility: to apply Scripture itself. Theological literature today is focused, especially, on history of doctrine and contemporary thought. Often this literature deals with theological questions by comparing various thinkers from the past and from the present, with a very minimal interaction with Scripture itself.

Then, in a footnote, Frame speaks of his conviction:

This problem is partly the result of our present system for training theologians. To qualify for college or seminary positions, a theologian must earn a PhD, ideally from a prestigious liberal university. But at such schools, there is no training in the kind of systematic theology I describe here. Liberal university theologians do not view Scripture as God's Word, and so they cannot encourage theology as I have defined it, as the application of God's infallible Word. Students are welcome to study historical and contemporary theology, and to relate these to auxiliary disciplines such as philosophy and literary criticism. But they are not taught to seek ways of applying Scripture for the edification of God's people. Rather, professors encourage the student to be "up-to-date" with the current academic discussion and to make "original contributions" to that discussion, out of his autonomous reasoning. So when the theologian finishes his graduate work and moves to a teaching position, even if he is personally evangelical in his convictions, he often writes and teaches as he was encouraged to do in graduate school: academic comparisons and contrasts, minimal interaction with Scripture. In my judgment, this is entirely inadequate for the needs of the church. It is one source of the doctrinal declension of evangelical churches, colleges, and seminaries in our day. Evangelical denominations and schools need to seek new methods of training people to teach theology, educational models that will force  theologian candidates to mine Scripture for edifying content. To do this, they may need to cut themselves off, in some degree, from the present-day academic establishment. And to do that, they may have to cut themselves off from the present-day accreditation system. 

—The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010), 278. 

Methods, Industry, and Trust

It ought to be said repeatedly that for all our methods and industry, it is God who must bestow light. For in his light alone do we see light. And lest this be misunderstood, it ought also to be said that God's ordinary means for bestowing light is through sound methodology and assiduous labor. Yet, God is not bound by them. He is free to bestow light on whom he will. Our methods and labor are futile without God's free favor. And so we are utterly dependent even as we break our brains and beat our bodies.

Fully Conversant with the OT

Scholars are sometimes fond of saying that Paul couldn't be alluding to (in a given instance) an OT passage in circumstances where his audience was primarily Gentile. But Prof. Doug Moo says this: "Paul's letters furnish abundant proof that he expected his Gentile readers to be fully conversant with the OT" (The Epistle to the Romans, 233).

Owen's Hermeneutics: A Breath of Fresh Air

In the modern West, there is almost universally such a strong sense of progress that the past is incessantly despised or looked upon with condescension. I don't think the fields of linguistics and hermeneutics are exempt either. Older handlers of language are frequently spoken of as apes that simply plopped noncontextual dictionary definitions into the meaning of words in a given context, ignoring like idiots the obvious, namely, the larger linguistic structures of which the words partake.

Now in saying this sort of thing, I don't want to dismiss the real instances of progress that have been made, nor ignore the shortcomings or bone-ignorance of the past. But I do want to say that our sense of progress is a bit overblown, and oftentimes overweeningly arrogant. Moreover, and this is my chief concern, important methods and approaches and lessons are sometimes lost.

What follows now is a small sampling (three statements) from John Owen's work on the Spirit, from the third volume of his Works, with my brief commentary along the way. The first one particularly pleases me.

Here is Owen on hermeneutics: "Scripture is able of itself to manifest its own intention and meaning unto humble and diligent inquirers into it" (47).

This sort of statement is conspicuously absent in modern

Luther on Studying Theology: Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio

Many big fat books pour forth today on interpreting Scripture. Hermeneutics, traditionally described as the science and art of interpretation, is the name of the discipline. And much of this is helpful and useful and profitable instruction. Yet, the single most important piece of hermeneutical counsel I’ve ever read (apart from Scripture itself) comes from Luther’s pen (which derives the counsel from Scripture itself!). And this comes from the Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of Luther’s German Writings (Luther’s Works, vol. 34, "Career of the Reformer," 283–288).

There he instructs not, speaking precisely, in hermeneutics as such, but in studying theology. He instructs in how to become a decent theologian. And though this instruction is not the sort given in hermeneutical instruction today, yet it has great bearing on the discipline. I do wish, hope, and pray that more teachers today said the sort of things Luther said when teaching others how to learn at Scripture's feet.

Luther describes the nut of the matter on page 285:

I want to point out to you a correct way of studying theology, for I have had practice in that. If you keep to it, you will become so learned that you yourself could (if it were necessary) write books just as good as those of the fathers and councils. . . . This is the way taught by holy King David (and doubtlessly used also by all the patriarchs and prophets) in the one hundred nineteenth Psalm. There you will find three rules, amply presented throughout the whole Psalm. They are Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio [prayer, meditation, Anfechtung (affliction, conflict, severe soul-struggle)].

The Song of Songs in Its Canonical Framework

D. A. Carson says this about how to understand the Song of Songs:

Although some have denied that this book is about sexual love in any primary sense, but is an allegory of either the love between Yahweh and Israel or between Christ and the church, I doubt it.  So many details of Song of Songs are so explicitly human and sexual (all the more so when the ancient Semitic symbolism is appreciated) that to argue that the meaning of the text is allegorical is unlikely.  Moreover, there are many parallels in other love poetry in ancient near eastern Wisdom Literature, so that one must conclude the genre was well known. 

On the other hand, after fully acknowledging the human and sexual love that this book celebrates—for God has made us human and sexual, and Wisdom Literature often focuses on the glory of the created order—we may not be far off the mark if we also see, within the canonical framework, a typological connection with God and Israel, with Christ and the church. For that is a theme repeatedly picked up in both Testaments (see, for instance, Hosea, or Rev. 21).

At some later date, as God allows, since I think Carson is on track, I hope to provide reasons from within Scripture itself why the Song should be understood typologically within its canonical context.  I also hope to work out in a rudimentary way an approach to the Song that steers clear of two extremes: the first I will call the literalist approach (common today, especially among scholars); and the second, the allegorist approach.  I think the swing from the allegorist interpretation (dominant throughout the history of the church and the history of Jewish interpretation) to the literalist interpretation is intriguing and even perhaps telling.

Interpreting the Song of Songs

In part 2 of  John Owen's On Communion with God, the point of departure and then the place of exposition for describing communion with the Son is the Song of Songs.  I said in an earlier post that I wanted to come back to this and give some of my thoughts on the propriety of this approach, knowing full well what most today think of this.  I do believe that the Song of Songs is fundamentally human love poetry.  It is about married love, conjugal love, between a man and a woman.  No doubt about it.  And yet. . . .

Owen says this of the Song of Songs:  "In brief, this whole book is taken up in the description of the communion that is present between the Lord Christ and his saints."  Who would agree with this today?  But is there any sense in which this is true, even if we assert (as I believe we must) that the Song of Songs is love poetry expressing union and communion between a man and a woman in the context of a marriage covenant?

Do You Know Yourself?

In Part 2 of Owen's On Communion with God and the second digression of chapter 3, Owen speaks of wisdom and knowledge in Christ.  And he asserts that all true wisdom consists in the knowing of God and of ourselves.

Concerning the knowing of ourselves:  "In the knowledge of ourselves, in reference to our eternal condition, does much of our wisdom consist.  There is not anything wherein, in this depraved condition of nature, we are more concerned than sin; without a knowledge of that, we know not ourselves."

Another wise word:  "A real and experimental acquaintance, as to ourselves . . . is our wisdom; and it is that which is of more value than all the wisdom of the world."

So do you know yourself?

(You can purchase this classic work Communion with the Triune God in a user friendly version lightly edited by Kapic and Taylor for the modern reader.)

Gospel Theatre: Rehearsing, Improvising, Performing

Here is the second lecture by Dr. Vanhoozer given at Southeastern.  Hit the title for the link.

Gospel Theatre: Staging, Scripting, Directing

This lecture and the one following (in the next post) given four months ago by Dr. Kevin Vahoozer of Wheaton College at Southeastern Seminary are worth absorbing.  The two lectures together are entitled, “Doing Faith: Seeking (and Showing) Understanding in Company with Christ.”  Click on the title to go to the lecture on Vimeo.