Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

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.

Baxter

by

Men have learned in books, that God is the chief Good, and only
the enjoyment of him in heaven will make us happy ;  but their hearts do not unfeignedly take him to be so.   Most men take the present contentments of the flesh, consisting in pleasures, profits, and honours, to be their happiness indeed.  This hath their very hearts, while God hath the tongue and knee ; this  is seriously sought after, while God is hypocritically complimented with ;   heaven is  heartlesslv commended, while the world is  eagerly pursued ; Christ is called Master, while this flesh bears all the sway :    only because they cannot choose but know that the world will shortly leave them in the grave, and this flesh, which is so cherished, must lie rotting in the dust ;   therefore, they will allow God the leavings of the world, and Christ shall have all that the flesh can spare; so far they will be religious and godly, lest they should be thrust into hell ; and they look for heaven as a reserve, when they can keep their worldly happiness no longer. This is  the self-deluding religion of thousands.

Richard Baxter, The Saints Everlasting Rest, in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. 22 (London: Duncan, 1830), 20-21

Seminary Survival Labs

by

Since both of my readers also subscribe to Mark’s blog, they’ve probably already read about the lectures Duncan Johnson will deliver next Saturday.

If not, here’s the information:

 

Saturday, April 3, 9:00 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m. Computer Classroom, Mack Library

Turning in quality seminary projects is hard work, and technological challenges don’t make it any easier. The Mack Library is offering three workshop labs for undergrad Religion majors, Seminary students and faculty. These sessions will explain and demonstrate key technologies necessary for seminary research, including Greek and Hebrew fonts, a Turabian template for Microsoft Word and Zotero (the premier tool for research organization and citation). All sessions will occur in the Mack Library Classroom (the former Testing Center, next to the e-mail stations) Saturday, April 3 and are free of charge. Register at the LibGuide for the Seminary Survival Labs. Drop-ins will also be welcome.

  • 9 a.m. Greek/Hebrew fonts – Demonstrates the two ways to use biblical language text in your documents, the BibleWorks fonts and Unicode.

  • 10:30 a.m. Turabian – Demonstrates the Turabian Wizard, with some time for individual practice.

  • 1 p.m. Zotero – Demonstrates using Zotero to organize your research and insert footnotes into your papers.

The LibGuide will soon include how-to videos demonstrating the techniques explained during the sessions.

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.

The Banquet of the Shepherd-King

by

Mark follows the bloody birthday banquet of Herod Antipas with a feast created by Jesus out of compassion.

We are told that Jesus looked at the crowd he fed “as sheep not having a shepherd” (Mark 6:34). In the Old Testament the shepherd imagery is often used of kings.

In Herod Israel had a rapacious king who in drunken banquets lusted after his step-daughter and ordered righteous prophets to be beheaded. But Jesus is the good shepherd king who has compassion on his people by feeding them with food that satisfies.

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).

The Post-Reformation Digital Library

by

The Post-Reformation Digital Library looks to be an enormously valuable resource. Nick Batzig says “This is the most comprehensive collection of free online PDF theological resources. It will be, without a doubt, a massively important site for those interested in pre-20th Century studies.”

There is an enormous amount of helpful theological primary sources available on Google Books, Internet Archive, and other sites. The PRDL helpfully organizes these by category: Reformed, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anabaptist, Arminian-Remonstrant, and Socinian-Unitarian. Also included are smaller sections on Early Modern Philosophy and Patristic and Medieval Philosophy.

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