Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Benefiting from Patristic Literature

by

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in evangelical quarters regarding patristic theology. In the hands of Thomas C. Oden, this has led to a resurgence of interest both in patristic biblical commentary and devotion, placed, one might add, in the service of an evangelicalism with a simple, ecumenical aesthetic which bears comparison, say, with the mere Christianity that has been such a part of the evangelical heritage.  Oden’s work is a treasure trove of theology; but the tendency of the project overall to relativize that which comes later, not least the great Protestant truths of justification by grace through faith, and personal assurance of God’s favor, render the overall project, in my opinion, less than Protestant. In the hands of others—most notably the recent work of Craig Allert—the patristic testimony has been placed in the service of contemporary critiques of established evangelical positions, such (in the case of Allert) as that on the inspiration and authority of scripture.  Of the two movements, that symbolized by the life and work of Oden is arguably constructive and helpful even to those, like myself, who wish to maintain a more elaborate doctrinal confession; the latter is rather an iconoclastic phenomenon, less easy to assimilate to orthodox, creedal Protestantism.
I would suggest that sound orthodox theology of today, however, can find a third way to do theology which both respects the insights of patristic theology while yet avoiding both the tendency to downplay later confessional developments and the desire to set the ancient church against the modern. It is that represented by the approach of such as Owen in the seventeenth century. Owen had an acute sense of the fact that there are a limitations to patristic theology, yet his Protestantism, far from making him dismissive of patristic theology, requires that he take patristic writers seriously. A commitment to scriptural perspicuity means that he examines in detail the history of exegesis relative to any passage of scripture he addresses. A commitment to the church as God’s means of transmitting the gospel from age to age means that he takes very seriously what the church has said about scripture and about God throughout the ages. A realization that there are a set of archetypal heresies, particularly focused on God, Christology, and grace, means that the early church provides him with much fuel for contemporary debate. A commitment to the fact that the church’s theological traditions, especially as expressed in her creeds, provides both resources, parameters and, at times, unavoidable conceptual problems for doctrinal formulations in the present drives him again and again to look at traditions of theological discussion from the early church onwards. Further, a belief that theology is talk about God, and not just communal reflection upon the psychology of the church in particular context, means that Owen regards it as having universal, referential significance; and thus he sees those who have worked in formulating doctrine over the years as having a significance which transcends their own time and geographical locale. In this context, he also understands that each solution to a doctrinal problem generates new problems of its own, and thus to understand why the church thinks as she does, one needs to understand how the church has come to think as she does (e.g., the anhypostatic nature of Christ’s humanity, a point likely to be incomprehensible to biblical theologians and/or no-creed-but-the-Bible types, but surely central to a sound understanding of incarnation in the post-Chalcedonian era). Each of these makes interaction with patristic authors necessary as Owen and others in his tradition work to ensure that the gospel is not reinvented anew every Sunday but, rather, is faithfully communicated from generation to generation.

Trueman, Carl. “Patristics and Reformed Orthodoxy: Some Brief Notes and Proposals.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 12, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 58-59.

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.

Nineteenth Century Advice to Twenty-first Century Multi-taskers

by

Give your whole mind to whatever work you are doing.  If
it  is merely adding rows of figures, or copying reports, try every
time to get it exactly right, without a single mistake.  And never
turn over your work till you have carefully examined it, to see if
there is the slightest mistake.  Make it  a matter of ambition, of
official fidelity and honor, to do your work well.

Advice of JAB to nephew in A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1901), 318.

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.