Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Galatians 4:21-31: An Allegory?

by

How should the Bible be interpreted? To read some dispensational interpreters the answer is found in Milton Terry. Too many dispensational books begin laying out a priori principles for interpretation apart from any biblical demonstration of these principles’ validity. Indeed sometimes the principles don’t cohere with the way the NT utilizes the Old, and ad hoc solutions are developed, such as Inspired Sensus Plenoir. In other words, NT writers can interpret the OT in ways that we cannot.

This seems to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture with regard to hermeneutics. How do we interpret Scripture? Scripture itself repeatedly demonstrates how by showing us examples in which one passage interprets another.

Does this approach justify allegorical approaches, such as those found in the church fathers—hermeneutical approaches that seem divorced from authorial intent and any hermeneutical control other than the analogy of faith?

Galatians 4:21-31 serves as a good test case. Paul clearly states, “Which things are an allegory” (4:24, KJV). Or is this clearly an allegory? A comparison of other translations shows that things may not be so straightforward. The ESV clarifies that Paul is not claiming Genesis was written as an allegory; it is his interpretation that is “allegorical”: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically.” Other translations remove the word allegory altogether: “which things are symbolic” (NKJV); “These things are illustrations” (HCSB); “These things are being taken figuratively” (NIV 2011; CSB). The best way forward is to see what Paul is doing in this passage.

Opening Question

Verse 21 sets the stage. Paul concludes his argument against those Galatians who wished to submit themselves to the Law by asking whether they have considered what the Law actually says about being under the Law. Verses 22-23 direct the readers back to the Abraham narrative. In its original setting in Genesis, this narrative is about the promises of God and the response of Abraham to these promises with growing faith.

Interpretation of Genesis 16, 21

In Galatians 4 Paul specifically highlights Abraham’s two sons to exemplify two ways in which Abraham sought to receive the promises. Genesis 16 records the birth of Abraham’s first son. In the previous chapter, when Abram reminded the Lord of both the seed promise and his lack of children (15:2-3), God re-affirmed the seed promise and further specified that Abram himself would have a son (15:4-5), and Abram believed God (15:6). But chapter 16 opens: “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children.” If Abram is to have children, it is his wife who would bear them. And yet Yahweh, the giver of the promise, had “prevented” Sarai from having children.

Genesis 16:1 shows a possible way out of this dilemma: “[Sarai] had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar.” The passage is clear that this is not God’s way of fulfilling the promise. When Abraham had previously consulted with God about a servant being the key to fulfilling the promise, God had rejected that solution (15:4). Ominously, in Genesis 16 God was not consulted. Moses also uses language that draws the reader’s mind back to Genesis 3: “And Abraham listened to the voice of Sarai” (16:2) just as Adam “listened to the voice of [his] wife” (3:17). Like Eve, who “took” and “gave also to her husband” (3:6, NASB), Sarah “took” and “gave to her husband” (16:3, NASB).

Wenham observes:

The fact that the phrase ‘obey,’ lit. ‘listen to the voice’ (שׁמע לקול), occurs only here and in Gen 3:17 would be suggestive enough. But more than that, in both instances, it is a question of obeying one’s wife, an action automatically suspect in the patriarchal society of ancient Israel [or should this be, in the ethical norms of Scripture?]. That this is more than a chance allusion to the fall seems to be confirmed by v 3, where further echoes of that narrative are found. [Wenham, WBC, 7; cf. Waltke, Genesis, 252]

Thus, as in the Garden of Eden, God’s word was not believed and humans took matters into their own hands. Because they sought the promise through their own efforts, Paul says, “The son of the slave was born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23), that is Ishmael was born of human contriving.

Note, however, that Abram and Sarai did not entirely disbelieve God. They were trying to fulfill God’s promise through their own efforts. Calvin comments:

The faith of both of them was defective; not indeed with regard to the substance of the promise, but with regard to the method in which they proceeded; since they hastened to acquire the offspring which was to be expected from God, without observing the legitimate ordinance of God. [Calvin, Genesis, 1:424]

Genesis 21 records the birth of Abraham’s second son. In this passage Moses specifically says that Isaac was born “as He had promised” (21:1, NASB). He reinforces the fulfillment of the promise by noting that the birth took place “as He had said” (21:1, NASB) and “at the time of which God had spoken to him” (21:2). Moses also emphasizes the Lord’s involvement in the birth of Isaac by specifying that the Lord “visited” Sarah, a term that indicates God’s special involvement. Abraham’s personal righteousness had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the promise, for he had failed once again in the previous chapter. His old age (noted in 21:1, 5, 7) also indicates that God fulfilled his promise. It is on the basis of this passage that Paul says, “The son of the free woman was born through the promise” (Gal. 4:23).

Application of Genesis 16, 21 to the Galatians

The circumstances of the birth of Abraham’s two sons parallel the two options that lie before the Galatians. They can seek to achieve the promises of God through human effort, or they can trust God to bring about what he has promised. Paul exploits this parallel by a figurative interpretation that draws further parallels between the mothers of those sons and the two covenants that the Galatians may live under: the Mosaic covenant or the new covenant.

The association of Hagar with Mount Sinai makes a clear connection to the Mosaic Covenant. The present Jerusalem probably refers to “the whole legal system of Judaism, which had its world-centre in Jerusalem” (Bruce, NIGTC, 220). And what of Arabia. Calvin and Schreiner suggest that the mention of Arabia signifies that those under the Mosaic Covenant have not entered the promises of God. Ridderbos, however, prefers to understand the verse as saying: Although Sinai is in Arabia, Hagar is nonetheless to be identified with the present Jerusalem.

The covenant symbolized by Sarah is not clearly identified, so interpreters divide over whether it is the Abrahamic covenant or the new covenant. In favor of the new covenant, the Galatian churches are Gentile churches, and they become the seed of Abraham and beneficiaries of aspects of his covenant because of their union to the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29). This union happens only through the new covenant sacrifice of Christ. The heavenly Jerusalem is neither the church triumphant (Aquinas) nor the church militant (Calvin). It is instead future Jerusalem, from which Christ establishes his righteous reign over all the earth. Some aspects of this righteous reign have begun with the inauguration of the new covenant, but its consummation awaits the future.

Interpretation of Isaiah 54

The connection between the Judaizers and the Mosaic Law is self-evident. But Paul must demonstrate the connection between the Galatian Christians and Sarah / the free woman / the new covenant / the Jerusalem above (note the γάρ, which indicates that Paul is grounding his claim of 4:26). He does this by quoting Isaiah 54:1.

Isaiah 54-55 links the Abrahamic covenant, the new covenant, and Gentile salvation while also having a nice verbal connection to Paul’s illustration through the word “barren.” Isaiah alludes to the Abrahamic (54:1-3), Mosaic (54:4-8), Noahic (54:9-17), and Davidic (55:3b-5) covenants, and he does so in terms of their fulfillment in the new covenant (compare Isa. 54:10 with Eze. 34:5; 37:26 and Isa. 55:3 with Isa. 61:8; Eze. 37:26).

Isaiah 54:1 connects to the Abrahamic covenant by speaking of Zion in terms of a barren woman having offspring (Isaiah 54:1 and Genesis 11:30 are parallel in Hebrew and especially in the LXX). The connection continues with the reference to “spread[ing] abroad to the right and to the left” (54:3), which calls to mind Genesis 28:14. Genesis 28:14 not only promises numerous offspring to Abraham but also says the blessing of Abraham’s seed would be to “all the families of the earth.” Isaiah brings those two ideas together in his exhortation for Zion to enlarge her tent because her seed will possess the nations (54:2-3).

What does it mean for Israel to possess the nations? The closest parallel to גּוֹיִ֣ם יִירָ֔שׁin Isaiah 54:3 is Amos 9:11-12: “‘In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess [יִֽירְשׁ֜וּ] the remnant of Edom and all the nations [הַגּוֹיִ֔ם] who are called by my name,’ declares the LORD who does this.” The emphasis in Amos is on Israel possessing all the nations. Edom is given as a concrete example, and perhaps also “as a synecdoche for the phrase ‘all the nations’ (כל־הגוים) which parallels it” (Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 398). The Lord identifies these nations as “called by my name.” This indicates “that the nations will not simply come under Israelite hegemony (as before), but that they will actually become one with God’s people” (Niehaus, “Amos,” Minor Prophets, ed. McComiskey, 1:492; also Finley, WEC, 325). James appealed to Amos 9:11-12 to make the same point that Paul is making in Galatians: circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses are not necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1-21).

Notably, this will happen not by natural means (as when a married woman has children), but it will be a supernatural work (like a deserted, barren woman who has never been in labor having more children than the married woman) (Isa. 54:1).

Application of Isaiah 54 to the Galatians

Thus Paul can conclude that the Galatians, “like Isaac, are children of promise” (4:28). These Gentiles have become part of the people of God not through their own efforts but through the supernatural working of God and in accordance with his promise to Abraham (Gen. 28:14).

Application of Genesis 21 to the Judaizers

After having established the identity of the Galatian Christians, Paul establishes the identity of the Judaizers: they are like Ishmael, for they persecute those “born according to the Spirit” (4:29). This connection is made on the basis of Ishmael’s treatment of Isaac in Genesis 21:9 (cf. Matt. 5:11; 1 Pet. 4:4). Calvin rightly understands the seriousness of Ishmael’s mocking:

“And there is no doubt that his manifest impiety against God, betrayed itself under this ridicule. He had reached an age at which he could not, by any means, be ignorant of the promised favour, on account of which his father Abraham was transported with so great joy: and yet—profoundly confident in himself—he insults, in the person of his brother, both God and his word, as well as the faith of Abraham. [Calvin, Genesis, 543]

Paul then applies the judgment that falls on those aligned with Ishmael (that is those under the Mosaic code): they will not receive the promised inheritance. Paul gives this warning based on the words of Sarah: “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman” (Gal. 4:30). In the flow of Paul’s argument, this quotation seems to be a warning that fits with Paul’s opening admonition: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” Submission to the Law results in being cast out from the family of promise.

In verse 31 Paul reiterates the conclusion that he reached in 4:28 about the identity of Christians. In 5:1 he concludes his exhortation and prepares the way for the following section by exhorting the Galatians to stand firm in their freedom and not to submit to the slavery of the Mosaic code.

Contrast Between Paul’s Method and Augustine’s

Throughout this passage Paul exploits surface similarities (Hagar’s bondage with the bondage of the Law; Sarah’s freedom with the freedom of the new covenant; Sarah’s barrenness and later fecundity with Zion’s barrenness and later fecundity) to illustrate aspects of his present situation, but when probed these surface similarities have deeply rooted, substantive connections. It is these roots that set Paul’s practice in this passage apart from the allegories of the patristic and medieval eras. For instance, Augustine extended Paul’s allegory to apply also to Abraham’s children by Keturah.

Now if someone has gained confidence from the Apostle’s very clear demonstra¬tion that these two sons are to be understood allegorically and also wishes to see in Keturah’s sons some figure of things to come—for these events involving such persons were not recorded of the Holy Spirit for nothing—he will perhaps find that they signify heresies and schisms. They are indeed sons of a free woman, as are the sons of the Church, yet they were born according to the flesh, not spiritually through the promise. But if so, they are also found not to belong to the inheritance, that is the heavenly Jerusalem, which Scripture calls barren because for a long time she did not bear sons on earth. [Eric Plummer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, Notes, Oxford Early Christian Studies, ed. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 195]

Augustine’s allegory does make superficial connections, but an examination of Genesis 25 reveals that it lacks any substantial connection to the teaching of Genesis 25.

Conclusion

Galatians 4 shows that Paul is willing to use Old Testament narratives illustratively, and he is willing to apply those narratives to the present situation of Christians. But Galatians 4 also shows that when Paul does this, his interpretation of the Old Testament remains rooted in the original meaning of the Old Testament texts.

Review of Pennington, The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing

by

Pennington, Jonathan. The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017.

Pennington’s commentary on the Sermon on the Mount comes in the three parts. The first, which he terms “Orientation” provides a discussions of the Sermon’s structure as well as of key terms and concepts: makarios (typically translated “blessed”), teleios (typically translated “perfect”), righteousness, hypocrisy, heart, Gentiles, the Father in heaven, the kingdom, and reward. In this section Pennington also argues that the larger context for the Sermon is the Hebrew wisdom tradition and the Greek virtue ethics tradition.

The second part of Pennington’s book is the commentary proper. This is a brief section, by section commentary of the entire sermon.

The third part of the commentary is a concluding chapter which summarizes the book’s argument in six theses:
Thesis 1: The Bible Is about Human Flourishing
Thesis 2: The Bible’s Vision of Human Flourishing Is God Centered and Eschatological
Thesis 3: The Moral View of the Bible Is a Revelatory Virtue Ethic
Thesis 4: The Sermon Teaches That Salvation Is Inextricably Entailed with Discipleship/Virtuous Transformation
Thesis 5: Virtue and Grace Are Compatible, Not Opposites
Thesis 6: Biblical Human Flourishing Provides Crucial Insight into the Meaning and Shape of God’s Saving Work

This commentary intersected with several areas that I’ve been studying recently:

  • I taught the Beatitudes in Sunday School this winter and spring
  • I wrote a paper for this summer’s Bible Faculty Summit on how beatitude/human flourishing and God’s glory work together as man’s chief end
  • John Frame’s comment in Doctrine of the Christian Life that the normative, situational, and existential perspectives on ethics that he argues Christians should have correspond to the deontological, teleological, and virtue approaches ethics, has led me to study virtue ethics.

I found convincing Pennington’s argument that makarois corresponds to the Hebrew ashre and that both refer to a state of flourishing that comes from being blessed. I also found persuasive his argument that teleios refers to wholeness of person (i.e., it affirms the need to obey the law as a whole person rather than just outwardly as the scribes and Pharisees) rather than to perfection as modern English-speakers understand the term. Pennington’s discussion of the Sermon’s structure was also well done.

As interested as I was in the possible connection between the Sermon and virtue ethics, I found that part of Pennington’s argument less convincing. That the Sermon and Greco-Roman virtue ethics cover an overlapping area is clear. But that Jesus was actually interacting with Greco-Roman philosophers seems a bit of stretch to me. It was also interesting to be reading this book while also reading Kavin Rowe’s book on Stoicism. Rowe argues against an encyclopedic approach to connecting philosophy with Christian throught. Pennington argues for a connection between the Sermon and Greco-Roman virtue ethics by virtue of its “encyclopedic context.” I wasn’t entirely sure if Pennington and Rowe were talking about the same thing by “encyclopedic,” but insofar as they were, I found Rowe more persuasive.

Another weakness is Pennington’s tendency at points to pit Reformation and Roman Catholic readings against each other. Pennington tended to favor the Catholic readings without any further comment on how those readings fit into larger systems of theology. More troubling, when I looked at Reformation and Post-Reformation writers like Thomas Watson, William Perkins, and even Martin Luther, I didn’t always see the opposition that Pennington is claiming existed. Since he tended to footnote the Catholic interpreters but not the Reformation ones, I wonder if there may have been a caricature of Reformation and Puritan authors at this point.

These criticisms aside, this is a helpful and largely correct approach to the Sermon on the Mount that I’ve benefited from reading.

Accommodating Evolution and the Problem of Evil

by

I recently provided a guest post at the BJU School of Religion blog about Evolution and the Problem of evil. My main point was that evangelicals often seek to harmonize Scripture with Evolution for apologetic reasons. But the consequences of the proposed harmonizations create further theological and apologetic problems. 

Read the whole thing here.

Origins of Allegorical Interpretation and Christian Theology

by

To spin the straw of traditional religious narrative into the gold of philosophically coherent and elevating theology, Hellenistic intellectuals availed themselves of allegory. . . . Allegory enabled the enlightened reader to see through the surface level of a text to its spiritual message, to understand what the text truly meant in contrast to what it merely said. Grammar, rhetoric, philological finesse: all these tools of classical paideia might be brought to bear on an ancient story to turn it into a philosophically lucid statement of timeless truth.

Paula Fredriksen and Judith Lieu, "Christian Theology and Judaism," in The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, ed. G. R. Evans (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), 86.

From Fredriksen and Lieu’s description, it seems the purpose of allegory is to evade the original meaning and worldview of a text so that it can be conformed to an alien worldview. If this is so, allegorical readings of the OT are singularly unfit for Christian theologians, for the resort to allegory is an implicit confession that the NT and Christian theology are alien to the theology and worldview of the OT. For those who see the problems with Enlightenment hermeneutics and wish to return to pre-critical approaches, the Reformers are better models than the Fathers.

Books and Articles Finished in September

by

Books

DeYoung, Kevin. Why Our Church Switched to the ESV. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

A helpful, non-technical comparison between the ESV and NIV that shows the benefits of a translation that seeks to remain transparent to the form and metaphors of the original languages when possible.

DeYoung, Kevin and Greg Gilbert, What Is the Mission of the Church? Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

See previous post.

Webb, William J. Corporal Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

William Webb applies his problematic Redemptive-Movement hermeneutic to corporal punishment. The central problem with his approach is that it seems difficult to avoid a Whiggish view of history (or in this case, ethics) with this kind of hermeneutic. He seems to imply that the judicial use of corporal punishment on criminal adults is ruled out with the redemptive-movement at its present stage. But why should an increasingly secularized 21st century West determine this. Why not a more Christianized 19th century? Or why the West; what of the East? Corporal punishment is still practiced in Singapore. Which is more humane, locking up people up in prisons for extended periods of time or instituting corporal punishment for certain crimes? These are questions that Webb fails to wrestle with. He also unhelpfully mixes discussions of child-rearing with passages that seem to deal with criminal punishments. He furthermore gives his readers false options by implying that either one adopt his redemptive-movement hermeneutic or accept as still valid various provisions of the OT Law.

Fitzpatrick, Elyse M. and Jessica Thompson. Give Them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011

The discussions of the law and the gospel could have benefited from some recognition of the third use of the law. Nonetheless, as the practical discussions unfolded, it seemed that this category was implicit. Readers would also benefit from reading and keeping in mind John Frame’s cautions on redemptive-historical preaching as they read this book. As with redemptive-historical preaching, the emphasis here is on the indicative, and there should be some cautions about not avoiding the imperatives for fear of moralism. Those caveats given, this is a good book. The overall thrust of the book is that parents should not try simply to produce good children. They should instead seek for gospel opportunities in discipline situations. This does not mean that discipline disappears but rather that it is contextualized with the gospel. The book also stresses that following the right formulas will not necessarily produce good children but that God’s grace is necessary to transform children’s hearts. Thus parents must consistently pray for God’s work of grace in the hearts of their children.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Good overview of various ecclesiological proposals and the state of the discipline. Negatively, it is slanted toward unorthodox views.

Ryle, J. C. Expository Thoughts on Matthew. 1856; repr., Banner of Truth Trust, 1986.

Ryle designed this work for family devotions and it is worthy of continued use for that purpose over 150 years from its original publication.

Hannah, John D. An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Hannah provides an interesting institutional history. It doesn’t have the same narrative quality as George Marsden’s history of Fuller Seminary or Gregory Wills’ history of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Hannah goes into more detail about curricular changes and other details which break up the narrative. But the discussion of how Dallas emerged from the Bible Conference movement and developed in relation to fundamentalism and evangelicalism was interesting.  Hannah placed Dallas somewhat between fundamentalism and the neo-evangelicalism spearheaded at Fuller Seminary.

Goheen, Michael W. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

I think this has been the most disappointing and most profitable book that I’ve read recently. Disappointing because I came to the book with high hopes and found that I disagreed with his basic thesis. Profitable because it is not only full of wise thoughts but because even when I disagreed I found my thinking helpfully provoked. Goheen did not convince me that the church is defined by its mission. It seems that the church most be more than a “come and join us people.” Its definition must include the what for which people join. Nonetheless, missions is vital to the church, and Goheen’s discussion of mission and missions remain helpful. I also disagree with Goheen’s relation of the church to Israel. This ended up being a major theme of the book. Nonetheless, Goheen has sparked an interest into researching further OT prophecies about the role of Israel in spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.

Wilson, Douglas. What I Learned in Narnia. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010.

One of the reasons Lewis’s books are so enjoyable for Christians is that they help them see with fresh eyes the foolishness of evil and the wisdom of a God-oriented life. These lessons are not sermonizing within the stories. They are baked into the narratives themselves. And they are the kind of things that stick in the mind and are recalled unbidden when similar circumstances or ideas arise in real life. Wilson highlights these lessons in this book. An enjoyable read.

Articles

Schreiner, Thomas R. “A Biblical Theology of the Glory of God.” In For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. Edited by Sam Storms and Justin Taylor. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

A helpful overview of the centrality of the glory of God in every part of the biblical storyline/canon.

Dever, Mark. “The Church.” In Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

A basic unpacking of the doctrine of the church in terms of its four ancient attributes and two/three Reformation marks. Includes helpful thoughts on church membership

Kidd, Reggie M. “What John Frame Taught Me about Worship.” Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame. Edited by John J. Hughes. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009.

He likes Frame, Clowney, Old, and Webber. But the essay is pretty thin on content.

Wolters, Al. “Reflection by Al Wolters.” in Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Edited by Gary T. Meadors. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

When I referenced this book for my dissertation, I found that Wolters had the most perceptive reflection on the four views presented. In the dissertation, I drew on him for his critique of Vanhoozer’s theodramatic view. This time I read him to refresh my mind on his critique of Webb. Here too he was perceptive. He notes several problems with a redemptive-movement hermeneutic: (1) It treats ANE ethics monolithically. There were multiple ethics in multiple cultures. Further, some may have been more advanced that Israel if one assumes the “ultimate ethic” that Web lays. (2) His approach depends on the Bible reader having access to ANE background information that many ordinary readers don’t have access to and that even scholars did not have access to before the nineteenth century. Even today scholarly knowledge of the ANE is patchy. (Wolters is clear that he is not against making use of ANE background materials.) (3) “There appears to be no standard by which to measure what an ‘ultimate ethic’ might be. A clue to what is in fact the implicit and unacknowledged standard for Webb is provided by the proximity in the diagram of ‘Ultimate Ethic’ to ‘Our Culture.’ To be sure, the latter is qualified by the words in parentheses: ‘where it happens to reflect a better ethic than Y,’ but no criterion is provided by which we can judge that ‘our culture’ on this or that point reflects a better ethic than Y. This is a remarkable statement when we recall that Y represents ‘the concrete words of the text,’ that is, the biblical text. For all practical purposes it seems that Webb’s ‘Ultimate Ethic’ is pretty well equated with ‘Our Culture,’ at least insofar as the latter is the bearer of human and liberal values. It looks for all the world as though the values ‘we’ hold trump the explicit ethical instruction of Scripture” (p. 306).

McDaniel, Stefan. “Flogging: The Best Hope for Our Broken Prison System?” The Public Discourse (2011).

It was interesting to happen across this article shortly after having finished Webb’s book on corporal punishment. It comments on Peter Moskos’s work, In Defense of Flogging, which raises the issue of whether flogging might be more humane than locking people up in prison. He tentatively proposes the flogging be an option that those convicts who are not a danger to society may choose instead of a prison term. This is interesting because Webb rhetorically reacts in horror at the idea of corporal punishment as a punishment for adult criminals. But what if Webb’s trajectory toward from Scripture toward our culture isn’t a trajectory to that which is more humane after all? This article at the very least raises that question.

Campbell, Donald K. “The Church in God’s Prophetic Program.” In Essays in honor of J. Dwight Pentecost,. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Lewis, C. S. “The Inner Ring.” In The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses. HarperCollins, 2001.

An excellent application of the tenth commandment to friendship. The best fictional correspondence to this address in Lewis’s writing is the character of Mark Studdock in That Hideous Strength.

Osborne, Grant. “Hermeneutics and Theological Interpretation.” In Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

When I was writing my dissertation on theological interpretation of Scripture, I found the literature so voluminous and diverse that I struggled in finding a structure for my analysis. In the end I focused on the role of tradition, the place of pre-critical interpretation as it relates to authorial intent, and how theological interpretation relates to biblical and systematic theology. I was therefore pleased to see that Grant Osborne’s survey of the same material covers these same key areas. Furthermore, I think he points his readers in the right direction on every point. He sees tradition as valuable but supplementary to Scripture, which retains its primacy. He argues that seeking authorial intention is correct and viable. One difference is that he seems to see Childs as a move forward after the collapse of the Biblical Theology Movement. I think that Childs carries many of the same weaknesses. That criticism aside, Osborne’s introduction to theological interpretation is a fine one.

Strange, Dan. “Not Ashamed! The Sufficiency of Scripture for Public Theology.” Themelios 36, no. 2 (2011): 238-60.

Strange provides a description of both Common-Kingdom (emphasis on natural law as the authority for the common kingdom) and Confessional-Kingdom (emphasis on the authority of Scripture for all of life) models of engagement with public life. He sides with the Confessional-Kingdom approach. His survey is helpful and his application to the UK is useful even for those in the USA.

Bookman, Douglas. “The Scriptures and Biblical Counseling.” In Introduction to Biblical Counseling. Edited by John F. MacArthur, Jr. and Wayne A. Mack. Dallas: Word, 1994.

Bookman’s concerns are entirely valid. But in making his case, Bookman seems overly reliant on arguing the definition of terms (while granting what many would identify as general revelation and its application in four affirmations), and even these definitions receive only the most cursory support from Scripture. Bookman’s discussion of general revelation would have been stronger if it had focused on the key general revelation texts, and his case against integrationist counseling would have been stronger if it focused on the substantive issue of psychological theories being equivalent to a theology rather than being revelation itself.

Mayhue, Richard L. “Is Nature the 67th Book of the Bible.” In Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Master Books, 2008.

Mayhue provides an able refutation of Hugh Ross’s claim that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. But he seems to overly limit general revelation in a few places. First, when he says that the breadth of content for general revelation is limited to knowledge of God alone, this seems to rule out natural law (though he grants Romans 2 deals with both general revelation and moral standards). When he says that the corpus of general revelation does not grow over time, Mayhue excludes history from general revelation. He says he does so on the basis that history does not show up in Ps. 19:1-6; Acts 14:17; 17:23-31; Rom. 1:18-25; 10:18, but I would have benefited from some further discussion on why many theologians include history. Does Mayhue think they wrongly see it in the texts he examines; does he think they wrongly see it in other texts that do not teach general revelation? Mayhue then says to expand general revelation beyond special revelation adds to Scripture. But this is not clear. Scripture is special revelation and general revelation is not. These reservations and questions do not affect Mayhue’s case against Ross; Mayhue successfully refutes Ross’s claims.

What is Theological Interpretation? – 2

by

As theological interpreters write about the mutual interplay of doctrine and exegesis in connection with Christian living, their work can be divided into three branches.

One branch, Theological Hermeneutics, is concerned with how theology ought to govern hermeneutical theory. In this category fall hermeneutical discussions like those carried on by Werner Jeanrond, Kevin Vanhoozer, Francis Watson, Stephen Fowl, and others.

Another branch, Theological Commentary, allows theology a significant role the exegetical process. A theological commentary is also written so that that the text addresses key theological and life issues that Christians face in the contemporary world. This entails biblical, historical, and systematic theological reflection. The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and the Two Horizons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments are two series that are explicitly attempting to be theological commentaries. Though not part of the “movement” per se, O. Palmer Robertson’s contribution to NICOT and Ridderbos’ commentary on John are both theological commentaries.

The counterpart to Theological Commentary is a more exegetically focused dogmatics. Grudem’s Systematic Theology should count, but at least on practitioner of theological interpretation doesn’t like him.*

A third kind of theological interpretation is harder to label. It includes a theological approach to a wide variety of topics. For example, this kind of theological interpretation provides a theological evaluation of New Testament studies, a theological approach to canonics, a theological introduction to the Bible or one of the Testaments, or a theological study of issues like the body and soul. This kind of theological interpretation could be labeled Theological Interpretation in Biblical Studies and Theology. The books in Baker’s Studies in Theological Interpretation fall in this category.

*R. W. Moberly acknowledges that Wayne Grudem is practicing theological interpretation, but he classifies it as bad: “Most scholars recognize differences between bad and good in theological readers. The obvious examples of bad are what one may loosely, but conveniently, designate as ‘fundamentalist.’ Fundamentalist scholars are locked into a certain kind of reaction to aspects of modern thought, and indeed they regularly display the ‘noncritical’ approach that Barton targets. Although it is invidious to name names, one clear example is Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which offers a particular kind of ‘theological’ interpretation of Scripture. Grudem’s considerable erudition is consistently trammeled by his theological presuppositions in the kind of way that most of his reasoning is persuasive only to those who share the presuppositions; and there is a clear distancing from biblical criticism as generally practiced. . . . Yet Grudem’s work is a prime example of what Childs and other theological readers have been trying to escape from. The goal is to escape the ‘liberal vs. fundamentalist’ dance of death by rethinking the basic categories within which a theological approach to the Bible might best be understood.” R. W. Moberly, “Biblical Criticism and Religious Belief,” Journal of Theological Interpretation (Spring 2008): 79f.