Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

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

BECNT Review

by

Since I posted recently on the NIGTC set, I thought I’d put some comments up about the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Overall I like this set. These commentaries are laid out nicely. The shaded section at the beginning of each pericope orients the reader to the flow of the passage. Often, after the verse by verse comments there is a shaded section that summarizes the pericope. These shaded sections help keep the commentary from becoming atomistic. I’m also very pleased that the Greek is printed in Greek font and not merely transliterated.

Here are my thoughts on the individual volumes.

Turner, Matthew – It’s nice to have a volume on Matthew by a Progressive Dispensationalist, especially in light of key eschatological passages like the Olivet Discourse. However, his comments seem exceedingly brief in many places. Perhaps I need to use Turner more, but right now I’m not sure this was the best purchase.

Stein, Mark – This may be a fine commentary, but I’ve not looked into it because I feel as though I have Mark well-covered between Edwards (PNTC), France (NIGTC), Cranfield, Hiebert, and Lane (NICNT). [Note: I just read the RBL Review of Stein’s work; it didn’t incline me toward purchase.]

Bock, Luke –Bock’s 2 volume work is massive. He defends the historicity of Luke and interacts with the Jesus seminar. He deals with the synoptic problem. He includes helpful text critical notes. The commentary proper provides verse-by-verse exegesis, and Bock often helpfully surveys and adjudicates various interpretations. He is not as helpful when it comes to tracing the flow of thought or literary themes of the passage in light of the rest of the book. Nor does this commentary consistently bring out the major theological themes of Luke. Joel Green’s NICNT contribution, though not as conservative as Bock, does a better job on those points. Nonetheless, Bock is invaluable and I’m glad I own these volumes.

Köstenberger, John –I like Köstenberger, and his commentary is not bad. But after reading Morris (NICNT), Carson (PNTC), and Ridderbos, I don’t sense that he is adding anything. He’s in many ways similar to Carson, but Carson packs more in. For this reason, I’ve not bought this volume.

Bock, Acts –This volume is okay. Once again it is light on literary approaches and theology. The notes are moderately helpful, but the lack of synthesis makes this commentary not all I was hoping it would be. Peterson’s contribution to the Pillar series looks to be a fine commentary on about the same level, and in addition to solidly explaining the text it is very strong on synthesis and theology. I prefer Peterson to Bock.

Schreiner, Romans – Douglas Moo has written the finest commentary on Romans (NICNT), but I’m also glad to own Schreiner’s Romans commentary. Schreiner does a good job of tracing Paul’s flow of thought and of explaining Paul’s meaning. Well worth owning. [Do note that in Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, 205ff., Schreiner humbly corrects some of his interpretations in the Romans commentary]

Garland, 1 Corinthians – I’ve found every commentary by Garland to be helpful. More recent than Fee (NICNT) and more manageable than Thiselton (NIGTC), I’m very glad I own this volume.

Silva, Philippians – I’d rank commentaries on Philippians: Fee (NICNT), O’Brien (NIGTC), Silva (BECNT) [I’ve not looked at the recent PNTC contribution yet]. Silva does a good job showing how the book fits together. I’m glad to own this volume.

McCartney, James – This is newly out, and I hear good things about it. It’s on my look into getting list.

Jobes, 1 Peter – I’ve read good things about Jobes’ commentary, and I’ve found it moderately useful when I’ve used it. But I already have Schreiner (NAC), Grudem (TNTC), Hiebert, Achtemeier (Hermenia), Stibbs (TNTC), Davids (NICNT), and a number of older works. So I’ve not felt a Jobes necessary purchase. (I would rank Schreiner, Grudem and Achtemeier among the most helpful commentaries on 1 Peter. Achtemeier is liberal, but his comments on the Greek are helpful.)

Green, Gene,  Jude & 2 Peter – I’ve not spent a whole lot of time with this volume, but I’ve been impressed with what I’ve seen. But having Schreiner (NAC), Bauckham (WBC), Hiebert, and Michael Green (TNTC), this isn’t a priority purchase for me.

Yarbrough, 1-3 John – This looks to be an excellent commentary on the Johannine epistles. It looks as though between Yarbrough and Carson’s forthcoming NIGTC volume, these epistles will be well covered. This volume is high on my to-get list.

Osborne, Revelation – This is my favorite Revelation commentary. Osborne writes from a premillennial perspective and carefully exegetes the book. His section on the theology of Revelation is also very helpful.

NIGTC Review

by

A friend recently asked for my evaluation of the New International Greek Testament Commentary. Below is my reply. I hope it’s helpful.

John Nolland, Matthew – Every time I looked at this commentary, it seemed as though he was spending more time doing redaction criticism than actually explaining the text. I don’t own and I don’t plan to buy.

R. T. France, Mark – This is a good, detailed exegetical commentary on Mark (though take note of the preterist eschatology in the Olivet Discourse). I own it and find it helpful.

I. Howard Marshall, Luke – This is a decent Luke commentary, but I would rank Bock’s 2 volume BECNT and Green’s NICNT volume above it. I do own it and consult it, however.

Anthony Thiselton, 1 Corinthians – This is a massive commentary on 1 Corinthians. There’s so much that it’s a bit overwhelming. Fee (NICNT) and Garland (BECNT) are much more useful for studying large chunks (like chapters). But if you’re going to do some detailed exegesis, this volume will be helpful. I own.

Murray Harris, 2 Corinthians – This is a superb 2 Corinthians commentary. Worth having. I own it.

F. F. Bruce, Galatians – Like most of Bruce’s work, this is a solid commentary. I own it. But there are a number of newer commentaries on Galatians that are in the pipeline that, I think, will surpass this one. I think Carson and Moo are both working on Galatians commentaries for the PNTC and BECNT sets, respectively.

Peter T. O’Brien, Philippians – This is one of the best commentaries on Philippians. It’s a hard call between O’Brien and Fee (NICNT). This is worth having. I own.

George Knight, Pastoral Epistles – Knight is more conservative than some of these other contributors, but his volume is older and thinner. I wish I could recommend him, but I’d go for Mounce (WBC), Towner (NICNT), and Marshall (ICC) before Knight. I’ve found when I use these Knight doesn’t add anything. I don’t own and don’t plan to buy.

Paul Ellingworth, Hebrews – A detailed, helpful commentary, if a bit atomisitc. Still worth having. I own.

Peter Davids, James – I’m not a fan of Davids’ commentaries. I’d go for Moo (PNTC) and the new BECNT commentary on James by McCartney before getting this one. I don’t own and don’t plan to get.

Greg Beale, Revelation – This is the commentary on Revelation from an Amillennial perspective. I don’t own, and I’m debating on whether I need an Amill commentary on Revelation. Maybe, if I’m going to teach eschatology and won’t have a library with it nearby. But other than that, I’m not planning to get.

A Prayer for Quickening Grace

by

I acknowledge and bewail before thee, O thou living and all-seeing God, my sinful dullness, and backwardness to the duties of thy holy service. When I should delight in the law or God, and serve thee with gladness, and make it my meat and drink to do the will of my heavenly Father, O how cold and listless am I in the performance or that which is best for me, and which most nearly and eternally concerns me! I am alive to the world, and very apt to be transported with the objects of sense: but O how heavy and dead in those offices or attendance on my Lord, which are the joy and glory of all the hosts of heaven: my soul cleaveth to the dust; quicken me, O Lord, according to thy word: according to thy precept, which commands us to be spiritually-minded, and to be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord. And quicken me, O my God, according to the word or thy promise, that sin shall not have dominion over thy servants, and that thou wilt perfect that which concerneth them. Dear Lord! be thou pleased to perfect that which concerns my soul, and engage the love of my heart to thy service. Let it be my delight to do thy will, O God, and with an enlarged heart to run the way of thy commands. O help me to put forth myself with vigour and activity in thy holy ways: and to apply myself to the performance of thy blessed will, not only because I must, but because it is the desire of my soul, and the joy of my heart, to be so engaged: let nothing in the world give me so much pleasure and satisfaction as to approve my heart unto thee, my God, and to have all my works acceptable in thy sight, through Jesus Christ, my only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

Benjamin Jenks, Prayers and Offices for Devotion, altered and improved by Charles Simeon (New York: Stanford and Sword, 1850), 162.