Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Machen on Hermann

by

One of [Machen’s] students recalled his saying that

“the great Dr. Hermann presented his position with such power I would sometimes leave his presence wondering how I could ever retain my confidence in the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives. Then I’d go to my room, take out the Gospel of mark and read it from beginning to end at one sitting—and my doubts would fade. I realized that the document could not possibly be the invention of the mind of a mere man.”

Machen came to see that Herrmann’s position was fallacious for two reasons. First, the picture of the ‘liberal Jesus,’ which called forth Hermann’s unbounded reverence, was a fictitious creation. Second, the type of religious experience that Ritshclian liberalism endeavored to conserve was hardly true Christian experience. It knew nothing of the biblical view of sin and redemption through the death of Christ.

David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony, 1869-1929 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1996), 230.

Because the liberals of Machen’s day were so pious, many in the churches would not remove them from the church. But if the liberals’ reverence was directed toward a “fictitious creation” of their own making, it was not praiseworthy but idolatry.

What is Theological Interpretation of Scripture?

by

Kevin Vanhoozer admits that “initially, it is easier to say what theological interpretation is not rather than what it is” (DTIB, 19; cf. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis, 145f.; Peter Kline, “Prolegomena,” Princeton Theological Review 14.1 (Spring 2008): 5). He specifies some things that it is not: “Theological interpretation of the Bible is not an imposition of a theological system or confessional grid onto the biblical text.” It is not, “an imposition of a general hermeneutic or theory of interpretation onto the biblical text.” And it is not, “a form of merely historical, literary, or sociological criticism preoccupied with “(respectively) the world ‘behind,’ ‘of,’ or ‘in front of’ the biblical text” (DTIB, 19).

Marcus Bockmuehl probes the issue with a question: “Is there perhaps some sense in which the living and lived word of Scripture shapes both exegesis and theology reciprocally, and in which dogmatics articulately engages and in turn illuminates the hearing of that word?” (Bockmuehl, in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible, 8; cf. Vanhoozer in DTIB, 20).

Theological interpreters answer Bockmuehl in the affirmative: interpreters must refuse to sequester theology from exegesis. This means the text is read as Christian Scripture by those within the Christian church. Furthermore, theological interpreters read the Scripture as addressed to them as Christians (and not merely addressed to communities in the past) for the purpose of spiritual transformation (and not merely as ancient texts to be analyzed) (see Gorman, 146f.).

Thus theological interpretation maintains two key emphases. First, it holds that exegesis should shape doctrine and that doctrine should influence exegesis. Second, it holds that theology is ultimately about faithful living.

Barth on Historical Criticism

by

Barth explains his objections to exegesis that never moves beyond the historical-critical level [for context see previous two posts]:

Taking Jülcher’s work as typical of much modern exegesis, we observe how closely he keeps to the mere deciphering of words as though they were runes. But, when all is done, they still remain largely unintelligible. How quick he is without any real struggling with the raw material of the Epistle, to dismiss this or that difficult passage as simply a peculiar doctrine or opinion of Paul! How quick he is to treat a matter as explained, when it is said to belong to the religious thought, feeling, experience, conscience, or conviction,—of Paul! And, when this does not at once fit, or is manifestly impossible, how easily he leaps, like some bold William Tell, right out of the Pauline boat, and rescues himself by attributing what Paul has said, to his ‘personality’, to the experience on the road to Damascus (an episode which seems capable of providing at any moment an explanation of every impossibility), to later Judaism, to Hellenism, or, in fact, to any exegetical semi-divinity of the ancient world!

Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 7f.

Theological Commentary 2

by

The most influential opponent to the kind of commentary critiqued in the previous post is Karl Barth. In the Römerbrief Barth critiqued historical criticism’s failure to serve the preacher. He advocated moving beyond historical critical study in order to understand what God is saying to Christians in the present day. This demanded the commentator understand the theological import of the text. Barth also insisted that each part of the Bible be interpreted in light of the whole.

Though Barth’s polemics against liberalism made him unpopular among many liberals in his day and in the decades that followed, the influence of postmodernity on theology led to a revival in interest in Barth. For some Barth is attractive because he provides theologians with a way of addressing the problems of modernism without entirely abandoning their liberal presuppositions or theology.  (For the view that Barth’s theology, despite its critique of liberalism, remained liberal theology see Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion (Louisville: WJK, 2001), xxi.)

Theological Commentary

by

In April, Rick Phillips made this insightful observation about commentaries:

I also find that if you want doctrinal insights and applications, you need to look at older commentaries.  More current commentaries are far more likely to note literary connections, and often to real profit . . . . Yet, while the technical exegesis is in some respects improved of late, the sense of the message of the text has regressed.  If our commentaries reveal anything, we are becoming more technically acute but also less receptive of the prophetic message of the text for us.  Does this indicate a professionalization of the exegetical calling, so that we are more skilled in working over the Word and less attuned to sitting under the Word?  Yes, I think it does.

Rick Phillips, “Working Over or Sitting Under the Word,” Reformation21.

The roots to this shift go back to Benedict Spinzoa. Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise in 1670 marked a decisive turning point in biblical studies. In that work he de-privileged the Bible from its canonical status and laid the basis for the historical critical method. As a result, the Bible was no longer a canonical text that supplied theological meaning but one religious text among others to be dissected historically.

Christians (using the term in Machen’s sense) have for centuries rejected historical criticism of the kind proposed by Spinoza, but they have also been profoundly affected by it. In their defense of orthodoxy conservatives have often been shaped by the emphases of their opponents, if in the inverse. Craig Bartholomew comments, “There has been an (understandable) tendency for orthodox scholars to fight the battle for Scripture where opponents have attacked. Thus a huge amount of Christian energy has been devoted to historical issues during the twentieth century. Far less, alas, to interpretation of the Bible as God’s address” (“Calvin, Barth, and Theological Interpretation,” in Calvin, Barth, and Reformed Theology, ed. Neil B. MacDonald and Carl R. Trueman [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008], 164).

Dr. Compton on Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Thessalonians 3

by

At this year’s MACP Dr. Compton gave an excellent paper correlating three major church discipline passages relevant to the doctrine of separation. I think Dr. Compton’s handling of these passages is one of the best I’ve seen (though I’d differ a bit with how he tied the passages together on the last page).

Highly recommended.

Print version

Audio version

Reflections on the Eternal State – Theology

by

Bavinck argues that the renewal of a physical world is necessitated by the doctrine of redemption. “God’s honor consists precisely in the fact that he redeems and renews the same humanity, the same world, the same heaven, and the same earth that have been corrupted and polluted by sin” (717). To put it another way, “The scope of redemption is as great as that of the fall; it embraces creation as a whole” (Wolters, 72).

The resurrection of the body also points toward a recreated earth. Christ returns to earth in a physical resurrected body and at that time brings about the physical resurrection of humans. Consistent with the resurrection of the body is the renewal of the physical world (Bavinck, 718; Ladd, 682; cf. Rom. 8:18-25).

Bibliography

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Reflections on the Eternal State – Biblical Data 2

by

The foundation for the hope of a physical eternity rests in the Old Testament expectation of physical, earthly kingdom of the Messiah (Ladd, 681f.). Isaiah speaks of the Spirit-empowered Davidic Messiah righteously ruling over an earth in which both animal and human aggression are put to an end. (Isa. 11-12). Amos ties the rule of the Davidic Messiah to the abundant fruitfulness of the earth (Amos 9:11-15). Joel also emphasizes the abundance of the earth, and this he ties to Yahweh ruling from Zion (Joel 3:17-18). The Psalms anticipate Zion will be the location of future salvation (Psalm 2:6; 14:7; 53:6; 110:2). Isaiah envisions Zion as the location where Yahweh will rule the world in justice (Isa. 2:1-4; cf. Mic. 4:1-7; Jer. 31:1-12). He also connects a future Jerusalem with the New Heavens and New Earth (Isa. 65:17-19).

Excursus on the Millennium: Many of the prophetic passages above have been taken by premillennialists as Millennial promises. Should they be taken as millennial, as referring to the eternal state, or as referring to both? Some passages like Zechariah 14 are clearly millennial since they include elements which cannot be the case in the eternal state. Interestingly, Isaiah 65-66 contains a mixture of elements some of which only fit the eternal state and others which only fit the Millennium. Prophetic books mix time periods in this manner. Other prophetic passages that refer to future blessing on earth centered on the Davidic Messiah ruling from Zion could well refer to both the Millennium and the New Heavens and Earth.

The future hope of an earthly kingdom ruled by the Messiah remained the expectation of the disciples. Though Christ told them they could not know the time of the visible arrival of the kingdom, he did not deny their understanding of its nature (Acts 1:6-8; see Bavinck, 718f.). The epistles also speak of resurrected believer’s ruling with Christ (2 Tim 2:12; Rom 5:17; Rom 4:13; 1 Cor. 6:2-3; see Schriener, 856).

Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3:13 provide the most explicit revelation of a new heavens and new earth. Romans 8:18-25 teaches that the creation is awaiting redemption also. When our bodies are redeemed, the creation will itself be set free from its corruption. Less directly, we have the promise that the meek will inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5), that Abraham will be heir of the world (Rom. 4:13), and that humans will enjoy food and drink in the eternal state (Luke 22:16, 30) (Bavinck, 719; Schriener, 841-64).

In sum, the Old Testament clearly anticipates the future worldwide rule of the Davidic Messiah. This hope remains in the New Testament. It begins to be fulfilled in the Millennial reign of Christ, but several passages indicate that this kingdom will extend into a new earth that will last for eternity.

Bibliography

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Reflections on the Eternal State – Biblical Data

by

In his New Testament Theology, Donald Guthrie argues for “the absence of any materialistic conceptions of heaven” (879). Even though he acknowledges that 2 Peter 3:13 speaks of “a new heavens and earth,” Guthrie says, “This appears to be a material interpretation of the heavenly state, but it is probable that it was no more intended to be taken literally than Revelation 21:1” (884f., cf. 887). Guthrie is not clear about the motivation for interpreting the resurrection of the body in a material sense while at the same time denying that the eternal abode of these resurrected, embodied people is non-material.

In his arguments for a non-material heaven, Guthrie seems to equate eternal life and heaven. But the passages he cites nowhere connect the two (881). Similarly, he states that in heaven humans will not be married (877), but the texts cited simply say that in the resurrection humans, similar to the angels in heaven, will not marry. The texts do not say humans will be resurrected to heaven.

More favorable to Guthrie are Colossians 1:5 which says the Christian hope is “laid up . . . in heaven,” 1 Peter 1:4 which says the Christian inheritance is “in heaven” (cf. Luke 12:33), and Hebrews 11:16 which says Abraham and those like him seek a heavenly country. Nevertheless, these texts do not say heaven is the eternal destination of believers.

The Christian hope and inheritance is currently in heaven, but this does not mean that it will stay there. Revelation pictures the New Jerusalem descending from heaven. Likewise, the country sought by Abraham is heavenly, but it is not necessarily in heaven. Hebrews indicates that Abraham did not receive what was promised (Heb. 11:13). Thus we should expect that someday Abraham will receive what God promised. Genesis 17:8 promised Abraham the land of his sojourning as an eternal possession.

This raises the question of the re-creation of the earth. How can Abraham receive the land of his sojourning if God recreates the earth? Perhaps the best analogy is the resurrection body. Resurrection bodies are clearly different than the bodies Christians now have, and there is no indication that God is going to recreate these bodies using the same molecules. Nevertheless there is a clear continuity between the dead person and the resurrected person.

John 14:1-6 also may seem to support the conception that God’s people will spend eternity in heaven. Jesus said that he was going away to his Father’s house to prepare rooms for his disciples. It is clear that the Father is in heaven (cf. Matt. 5:45). Jesus will then come again and take his disciples to be with him. This seems to indicate that Christ will return to bring his disciples to heaven. This passage must be harmonized, however, with other passages that teach believers will live on earth during the eternal state. It may well be that what Jesus refers to in John 14 is coming for his people at the rapture. According the the pre-tribulation model, saints will dwell with Christ in heaven during the tribulation. At the end of the tribulation they will return to earth with him for the Millennium and the eternal state.

Bibliography

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1981.

Thoughts on N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope

by

In Surprised by Hope, Wright does a good job defending the historicity of the resurrection (albeit with problematic concessions about inerrancy; e.g., the illustration of Wittgenstein’s poker, pp. 31ff). He is also correct to point out that the hope of Christians is not a disembodied soulish existence in heaven but a resurrected body on the new earth.

Wright’s main argument about the resurrection and the new creation is correct. Conservative who know they agree with Wright on these points may be surprised by how much they end up disagreeing with Wright along the way in this work.

For instance, because he’s not willing to fully challenge Darwin (83), Wright is forced to concede that death is part of the good creation of God (94-95). This puts in jeopardy the truth that bodily resurrection is the Christian hope in the face of a fallen world. That truth is close to the heart of Wright’s argument in Surprised by Hope, but this concession puts an otherwise good argument off-kilter from what the Bible is actually saying. Wright says, “Death as we now know it is the last enemy, not a good part of the good creation” (p. 99, emphasis added). This is very different from Rom 5:12 (to name just one passage).

Wright is not always quite fair when dealing with other positions. For instance, he brings up Harold Lindsell and Tim LaHaye when discussing dispensational theology, but he nowhere deals with scholarly dispensationalists like Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, or Alva McClain who have actually made some of the points Wright is making before Wright made them. This is all the more annoying because Wright has a habit of speaking as if he has finally discovered truth that everybody else has missed when often time he seems simply to have failed to do the requisite research in historical theology.

Wright’s aberrant soteriological views also appear in Surprised by Hope. Wright either distorts or fails to mention the Reformation view of justification when presenting his own view on the matter (139f.). Those who hold to the traditional view are "overanxious" and wish to "rigorously exclude" any "mention of works." While such a person can be found, Wright ignores the concerns of a number of careful evangelical scholars who have argued his views on justification contain unbiblical deviations from what Protestants have historically accepted since the Reformation.

In getting justification wrong Wright gets the gospel wrong. In other works, Wright also foregrounds the end of the exile when it comes to the cross (JVG, 592), repentance (JVG, 247-51, 256-58), and forgiveness (JVG, 268-72). As a result the larger story of the Bible about creation, fall, and salvation from sin becomes the story of Israel about election, exile, and return from exile.

This distortion of the gospel is clear in what Surprised by Hope omits. Wright wrote an entire book about the resurrection of Jesus and bodily resurrection as the hope of Christians without actually coming around to telling his readers how they could be saved from sin and included in the resurrection of believers. Though he included a chapter about Jesus as judge, there is nothing to tell a reader how he can escape God’s judgment. Even the section on evangelism deals primarily with mistakes that evangelicals have too often made. Wright does not handle how an individual can be saved from his sin.

Though Wright is correct that salvation is more than an individual’s relationship with God, salvation is certainly not something less than an individual’s salvation from sin. The Fall was cosmic in extent, but it sprang out of the actions of individuals. Likewise, redemption is cosmic in effect, but it too centers on the rescue of individuals from sin and the restoration of fellowship with God.

In the end, Wright’s main argument about the resurrection is correct, but because Wright has so many other central things wrong, the book itself disappoints.