Category: Hermeneutics Page 2 of 3

The 5th Act.

On September 7, 2017

The call to improvisation is among N.T. Wright’s many controversial beliefs. In the Old Testament, God laid out all the rules for his people. In general, men and women were closer culturally and historically to the instructions that God had given. Now that the Scripture is finished God calls on the church to improvise. It’s not that there is no improvisation in the Old Testament, but those who come after Christ have a unique relationship with the Spirit in bringing the reconciliation of all things through Christ, You can see him defend these beliefs here, here, and here. My introduction is a very simple summary of his belief.

False improvisation

Unfortunately, Wright’s own understanding of improvisation seems to lead him to embrace new understandings of Genesis and the role of the church. We can see how the logic goes. New understandings have come to light in science, in society, and in the scholarship of scripture and the church needs to improvise in response to that. Wright deserves respect because he attempts the Sisyphean task of defending it all exegetically. He gives a rather radical re-interpretation of the New Testament on the role of women and joining with many others in re-interpreting Genesis 1. (His work on re-interpreting the role of women has an unbelievable degree of subtlety. It’s hard to get away from the idea that he is twisting himself in circles in order to demonstrate his own enlightenment.)

(It may be that the problem here is not so much Wright’s understanding of improvisation but his hermeneutic of scripture. In Wright’s description of improvisation, he is on very solid ground. This quickly becomes quicksand when combined with liberal hermeneutics.)

Improvisation according to the rules.

Even if Wright’s improvising leads him to undermine the clarity of scripture on certain topics, I believe that his understanding of improvisation is laudable. The problem is that he is not following his own rules. He is not listening when Scripture is clear on the rules.

To demonstrate Wright’s point, I’d like to point out the following passages. All of these passages show how the coming of the Holy Spirit should give us confidence in using our God-given wisdom to apply scripture. God gives his church discernment.

In 1 John 2: 20, John says, “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” God has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us in our decisions. He is the one who gives us the ability to apply the scripture to our lives; to improvise from the scripture that he has given us.

The new status that we have in Christ confirms our call to improvise. Having proclaimed the salvation Christ gave, Paul also tells us what happened after we are brought into his kingdom in Ephesians 2:6. “He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens, in Christ Jesus.” In Christ, we are ruling in heaven. Paul confirms this in 1 Corinthians 6: 2: “Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world.” In 1 Corinthians Paul is calling the Corinthians to grow in the wisdom of Christ. The need to seek discernment in judging evildoers in their congregation. They need to learn how to make decisions for the church of Christ in Corinth. Paul wants them to grow in maturity. They will judge the world. They need to practice that judgment now.

There is an “already, but not yet” here. In Christ, we already reign, but we do not experience of the fullness of this reign. God calls us to suffer first. 1 Timothy 2:12, “If we endure, we will reign with him.”

Finally, we have James 3: 13-18. There James speaks of wisdom from below and wisdom from above. We have the Wisdom from above. It is accessible to us. With it we can discern what is “pure, then peace-loving, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without favoritism and hypocrisy.”

We have an assumption in the New Testament of a new degree of wisdom given to the saints. This gift is through the Holy Spirit, in order to apply the scripture that God has given to contemporary problems. Naturally, this should be carefully done. Further, it should be done with a desire for obedience to every breath of God. Contradicting historic teachings on Creation and gender roles does not give evidence of that type of desire.

Theses on Natural Law and its Recovery

By James

On August 23, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics, Uncategorized

In this post, I want to give some initial thoughts on natural law itself and the recent recovery of natural law.

Reading many contemporary proponents of natural law, I am impressed by their ability to interact with 16th and 17th century sources. They are particularly impressive in their understanding of the protestant scholastics and their forebears. They give a robust defense of natural law as something biblical. Further, they prove that natural has the stamp of the best of Christian tradition. Unfortunately, I don’t see a willingness to critically interact with classical natural law theory of the 16th and 17th century. It may be that the proponents of the 16th and 17th century got natural law right. Even if they did, there should be room to talk about natural law with greater specificity than those in the past. Natural law can be a highly ambiguous term.
(a) One of the most egregious examples of an inability to interact with natural law critically is the lack of interaction with the Van Tillian critique of natural law. I realize that the Van Tillian critique is guilty of a dependence on bad historiagraphy. Van Til relied on a poor reading of Thomas Aquinas, as well, as a poor historical understanding of the development of natural law. Even so they were dealing with a contemporary form of natural law that had twisted what the Protestant scholastics taught. Contemporaries of Van Til would use their theories of natural law to undermine the faith. (b) This lack of interaction is combined with a lack of understanding: Van Til was dealing with men who were using natural law to defend things like old earth creationism and liberalism in the churches in general. I say this, not to exonerate Van Til and Rushdoony, but to give context to what he was fighting.
This thesis is more of a pet peeve of mine. If natural law is a reality then unbelievers also have access to God’s truth in their interactions with God’s world. This means Christians can learn from unbelievers, who had many things wrong about God. My thesis is this: contemporary unbelievers should be just as helpful in finding truth, perhaps even more so, as past unbelievers.
Now we come to the critique of classical natural law theory. I want to argue that natural law is an aspect of God’s relationship to his creation, not a particular something in itself. In my reading so far I have not seen a clear recognition of this in the scholastics. If this is not clearly laid out natural law can slowly be separated from God and gain an authority of its own. It can begin to compete with the Scriptures as a source of authority. If we immediately define as an aspect of God’s relationship, this becomes impossible.
Against the Protestant Scholastics, I want to argue that natural law is mutable. If the cosmos changes, natural law changes. This is a change in creation relative to God that changes the configuration of natural law. One example would be the necessity of sacrifice after Adam fell into sin. This was because the human race changed in relation to God.
Behind all this is a certain theory of the universe. We can think of the universe in terms of a puzzle or legos. A world made on the analogy of legos contains a number of possibilities for design. A box of legos has the potential for several different shapes. The natural law legos can be kept in the same configuration even if the rest of the legos are re-configurated. If creation is more like a puzzle, then each piece is contingent on the other pieces. If a part of the puzzle is re-configurated then the whole puzzle is reconfigurated. Natural law is the aspect of “rightly fitting together” according to the maker’s design. Like the legos, the puzzle pieces have reality in themselves. Unlike the legos they are contingent on one another for the completeness of the puzzle. I argue that the universe is a puzzle. (I wonder if this is behind Van Til’s argument that unbelievers cannot have capital-T truth. Van Til thinks of truth radically contingent on knowing Christ as the centre and expllanation of the universe. The problem with this is that you can still know part of the puzzle as something that is truly part of the puzzle. You just don’t have the key to the puzzle; Jesus Christ. It is a hermeneutical problem, not an epistomological problem.)
My boldest thesis: I would suggest that the term “created order” replace the term “natural law.” I believe that the understanding of the term “natural law” can quickly turn to a semi-autonomous force. In reality, “natural law” is radically contingent on the creator. The term “created order” emphasizes that contingency.

Finding Wisdom 2

By James

On July 27, 2017

In education, Hermeneutics

There are a number of characters in Proverbs. The righteous are those who actively seek out wisdom. They are humble. Further, they seek God’s wisdom, not their own. The wicked are those who actively seek out folly. They are proud. They are full of selfish ambition However there is a rather interesting 3rd character. He is also seeking folly, but he is not actively seeking folly. In a sense he finds folly, because he has never sought wisdom. He is the sluggard. Wisdom, in Proverbs is the ability to discern between two choices. Both the wicked and the righteous go out and make those choices. They choose between wisdom and folly. The sluggard chooses to stay home.

We find the sluggard in Proverbs 6: “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Observe her ways and become wise.” The ant doesn’t have somebody telling her what to do. She acts on her own intiative. She goes out and finds a job, so that she may learn her trade. The sluggard needs to get up out of his bed and learn from the ant. The author of the proverbs wants to encourage his readers in godly ambition.

Another example comes from Proverbs 26 starting at verse 13. The sluggard cries out, “There is a lion in the streets.” The sluggard makes excuses for himself. He can’t risk anything. Again, we need godly ambition. We can’t be afraid of risks when we go out into the world. We have to be wise and prudent in our actions, but if we live in fear of what might happen, we will never find the prize. The reward will be gone.

Christians then have no excuse for sitting around and waiting. There is no excuse for endless leisure time. We’re called to go out and find wisdom. If we do not, we will lose wisdom. We become the fool, fearing imaginary lions. Ultimately, we lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so.

Wisdom, in our passages, is the practical ability to build, to make business choices, to choose a marriage partner; ultimately anything that involves human action. But within Proverbs all wisdom ultimately points to the Wisdom of God, the Wisdom that God reveals in Jesus Christ and the Wisdom by which God made the world. As we said in an earlier post, he is the one who holds the universe together. We can distinguish between practical wisdom and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs, but they cannot truly be seperated. If we do not seek wisdom, we ultimately lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so.

So one of the messages of proverbs is, “get up, get out and find wisdom.” Search then. Seek out the wisdom of the universe. Learn how to fix a car. Learn how to make a chair. Ultimately, search for the Wisdom; Christ. That is a life-long search a life-long longing for those who have found him.

Walk in Wisdom

By James

On May 27, 2017

In Hermeneutics, typology

The wisdom of Christ plays a very important role in the book of Colossians. In fact, Paul alludes to wisdom literature a number of times throughout the book. The book of Proverbs exemplifies wisdom literature. Solomon writes Proverbs in order to teach his son about the pursuit of wisdom. Paul implicitly replaces the pursuit of wisdom with the pursuit of Christ.

I want to point out a couple passages in Colossians, in which Paul does this.

Colossians 1:10 is Paul’s prayer that God might fill the Colossians with wisdom and spiritual understanding. The wisdom that Paul asks for is a wisdom, which will teach the Colossians to live well before God. Proverbs gives the same reason for pursuing wisdom. When a young man fears the Lord, he gains wisdom, which is the ability to make good decisions day by day.

Colossians 1: 15-20 teaches us about the source of that wisdom. The source of that wisdom is Christ. Christ performs a similar function to the wisdom through which the Lord created the world in Proverbs 8. Like wisdom, Christ is the means for creating the earth. Christ is not the same as wisdom. Rather, he is the source of wisdom. Proverbs 1:7 teaches the same thing about God: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

Paul confirms all this in Colossians 2:2-3. Paul teaches that all the treasures of wisdom are hidden in Christ. Proverbs teaches us to pursue Wisdom. Implicitly, Colossians teaches us to pursue Christ. After all, if all the treasures of wisdom are hidden in Christ, that means we should be seeking out those treasures.

In the remainder of chapter 2, the treasures of Christ are contrasted with the elemental principles of this world. Christ is sufficient for all knowledge and all wisdom. This doesn’t mean you can’t have a type of wisdom without Christ. Rather, you don’t need anything other than Christ himself in order to live well before him.

All this puts chapter 3 in a new light as well. Christ raises Christians to the heavenly places so that they dwell with the source of wisdom. Christians are now free to pursue Christ. When they pursue Christ they begin to understand his desires for a holy life before God.

Finally, in chapter 4, Paul tells us, “walk in wisdom towards outsiders.” The wisdom of Christ affects all areas of the Christian life. If Christ is the source of wisdom, we demonstrate Christ by walking in wisdom.

Conversation with the Fathers 2: Denying the Role of Reason.

By James

On May 18, 2017

In Hermeneutics, History, Traditionalistic exegesis, Uncategorized

I believe that conversation with the fathers of the faith is under attack.

I want to note three different ways the conversation has come under attack. I believe that each way ultimately undermines the role of reason in responding to the authority of scripture. They undermine the role of reason because they lose the possibility of having a conversation about the meaning of scripture with fellow saints.

The first attack comes from rationalists. They are more popularly known as liberal Christians. The rationalists attack this understanding by exalting human reason. Human reason is the ultimate authority, not scripture. They deny the singular authority of scripture. In this way scripture just becomes one of the many voices that leads us to truth. Rather than a discussion about a firm revelation, we have a discussion that guesses at what might have been revealed. Because there is no firm authority your guess is as good as mine.

Conversation concerning scripture comes under attack because there is no shared “center” for conversation. There is no foundation for conversation Because conversation is under attack, reason also comes under attack. To understand this, we need to understand the purpose of reason. Reason is a tool to persuade one another. If you do not have a foundation upon which to rest your reason you will have no ability to persuade another person of your view. In this way, reason is lost in interpreting the scriptures.

Consider a discussion on Genesis 1. Rationalists often reject what Genesis 1 contains because it does not fit their experience. Or maybe because a God like God could not have created the world in that way. Suddenly they begin to find whatever they want in Genesis 1.

Another attack comes from Christian radical individualism. In this view, the individual reader becomes the most important interpreter of scripture. Conversation with fellow saints both of the past and of the present is lost because “me and my Bible” are the most important pair out there. The problems with this understanding are well documented today, in part because this understanding is very common in North America.

Loss of conversation leads to the loss of reason once again. Any reasonable argument can be rejected on the basis of my reading of scripture. Even though Christian radical individualism accepts the authority of scripture, it borrows from rationalism. Like rationalism, this individualism understands that its interpretive authority is primary.

Consider a discussion on the book of Revelation 11. The fact that there are two witnesses is unquestioned. The radical individualist will tenaciously hold to his interpretation of these two witnesses, even if he cannot support his understanding through well-reasoned arguments.

Finally, we come to traditionalism. At first, it doesn’t make sense that traditionalism would reject conversation with the fathers. Traditionalistic churches have a huge respect for the fathers. They certainly don’t reject the opinions of the fathers. Rather, they reject the conversation with the fathers. A well-reasoned argument can not overturn a well-established opinion. They never find Calvin wrong. John of Damascus is sublime on every point. Thomas Aquinas is absolutely rigorous in every doctrine he developed. They reject the tool of reason in discerning whether the fathers were right, partly right, or plain wrong on a certain issue.

Traditionalism is a plague to all Christians, but there are churches that mandate traditionalism in their confessional material. The result is silence before tradition, not conversation. One must repeat after the fathers or be silent.

A classic example here would be the doctrines that have accumulated around the Virgin Mary. Even though these have very little or even no support from scripture, they are treated as authoritative doctrine because certain fathers discerned teaching about Mary in certain scripture passages.

What I would prefer is a conversation. We are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters and brothers, discussing and seeking to discern the meaning of the Holy Book that God has given to us. This doesn’t mean we have to apply our reason to every issue, rather we use the reason that God has given to us unto those issues that the Spirit have led us to.

n.b. These categories are meant for a helpful overview. I believe that most denominations will have all the categories listed above, even though they may officially lean toward one of these understandings. This is true of individuals as well.

Conversation with the Fathers.

By James

On May 2, 2017

In Hermeneutics

I wanted to write a quick explanation of how I interact with the exegetical tradition of the church. In general, I understand myself as approaching the text in a community of interpreters. This is why I rely on the thousands of scriptural commentaries of the past. Even if I do not make my reliance on tradition explicit all the time, there is a history of conversation with present day saints and saints of the past when I commit myself to a teaching of the church.

When I approach the tradition of scriptural exegesis, I view myself as having a conversation with Fathers in the faith. They are witnesses to the truth of Christ. They didn’t only confess Christ but they have died in him as conquerors. As faithful Christians, they submitted themselves to Christ’s word, just as I do. Their understanding of scripture should be respected. I include here all the Fathers of the faith from Athanasius to Calvin, from Augustine to Charles Hodge, from John Cassian to John Wesley, from Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure to J. Gresham Machen. I honor them but I allow for differences between myself and them. They already have many differences between one another.

I have this qualification. If I am the only one with a certain interpretation of a passage, I am very careful. If I do decide that what I have is a reasonable interpretation of scripture, I must first of all offer it to the communion of the saints both present and future. God will guide his saints in discerning what is good and what is evil.

The reformers, Luther and Calvin, seem to share this understanding of their Fathers in the Faith. They were reading elder statesmen in the church of Christ. I would add that we build on the work of these elder statesmen. Luther and Calvin built on the medieval scholastics and the fathers of the early church. We, in turn, build on Luther and Calvin and the other reformers. The church grows in its ability to exegete carefully by standing on the shoulders of giants.

The community of saints and her shepherds labor in both the growth of knowledge and in testing the witness of those both past and present.

Inventing Mary

By James

On April 22, 2017

In Hermeneutics, Traditionalistic exegesis, typology

In 1950, the Catholic church declared the “Assumption of Mary” to be official doctrine. This is the doctrine that Mary, at the end of her life was taken into heaven. The Catholic Church believed it was confirming the faith of the Fathers.

The doctrine was, in part, based off a certain interpretation of Revelation 12. (I should add that this is certainly not the only passage behind this doctrine and there is also a complicated typology of Mary that has developed over the last 200o years) At the end of Revelation 11, John tells us that the ark of the covenant appeared in heaven. In chapter 12, a sign appears. We see a woman who bears a child and a dragon who chases her. It is not surprising that many identify this woman with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Many will also identify Mary with the ark, which is found in heaven at the end of chapter 11.

We need to discern between three different issues here: whether Mary can be referred to as an ark, whether the ark in revelation 12 is meant to refer to Mary, and finally whether the argument that the ark does picture Mary is proof of the doctrine of assumption.

Is the ark of the covenant a picture of Mary?

A number of church fathers said just that in various sermons. They saw that just as the ark carried the law, some manna and the staff of Aaron. They saw that Christ was the fulfillment of all these things and therefore they saw Mary as an ark, which carried Christ into the world.

I argue that we can picture Mary in terms of the ark. I’m not sure if this is necessarily the point of any particular scripture passage, but it is a wonderful word picture pointing to the significance of Mary. Mary is, after all, Theotokos or the God-bearer. She is a picture of the church, which also carries Christ, by virtue of the Spirit. When I say these things I do not intend to make her any less a sinner. David, an adulterer and a murderer, was permitted to be a picture of Christ. Abraham, an idolater, was given the gift of being the pre-eminent man of faith. So also Mary a woman, by nature under damnation, was, by grace, given the honor of carrying the Christ in her womb. We know from Leviticus 16 that the ark itself needed to be atoned for. So did Mary.

Is the ark Mary in Revelation 11: 19?

I’ve already tipped my hat toward my answer to this question. I would argue that the ark is not in reference to Mary. Let me begin by demonstrating the problem with seeing the ark as a reference to Mary internally. I will continue by demonstrating who I think the ark does refer to. Finally, I want to show that even though I disagree with this particular interpretation, it does get some things right.

The ark of the covenant appears in heaven at the moment the 24 elders are calling upon God to reveal his wrath against the nations and his vindication of those who fear him. When the ark appears, there is thunder and lightning suggesting that the appearance of the ark of the covenant has something to do with the coming of the wrath of God.

Then we have a scene change. We see a woman, who is struggling with the birth of a child. She bears the child and the child is caught up into heaven in v. 5. The dragon tries to destroy the women, even after the child is taken up, but God protects the women. He gives her wings to fly away from it in 12:13. Even the earth protects the woman.

There are a couple reasons why we shouldn’t see the ark as the woman in this passage. First of all, there is a clear break between the scene of chapter 11 and chapter 12. The two passages follow one another but they don’t necessarily have the same subject. This means that just because the woman is close in proximity, doesn’t mean that she should be identified with the ark. The 2nd thing to note is that the women never ascends into heaven. Rather it is the male child who ascends into heaven. The last thing we should wonder about is what the assumption of Mary has to do with the coming of the judgment of God? It seems strange that the entrance of Mary into heaven would be a catalyst for God’s judgment.

(I also wonder if Mary was still the ark after she had left the womb of Christ).

It is much better to see the coming of the ark of the covenant as a picture of Christ’s ascension. The male child (Christ) is the one that ascends into heaven in Chapter 12:5 and not the women. But if this were the only reason for understanding the ark as Christ, it would be very weak reasoning. This is because of (as I have already noted) the obvious change of pace between chapter 11 and chapter 12. They are telling different stories. These are stories that do follow one another, but they are visions that have a distinct message.

However, we can strengthen our reasoning through our understanding of how Jesus Christ functions as the ark of God throughout the New Testament.

When we think about the context of the appearance of the ark, we notice both a promise of wrath and of deliverance for the saints. Our minds are drawn to Romans 1:17, “For the righteousness of God is revealed.” The very next verse tells us that God reveals his wrath as well. We learn later in Romans that all this is revealed in Jesus Christ. Theologically, then, we should expect Jesus Christ to enter the room at a call for judgment and vindication. He is the one who absorbs the wrath of God for the sake of his saints and who brings judgment and the wicked.

Of course, we need to defend this with more than theology. We need to see that the ark functions in a similar way to Jesus Christ. On the day of the atonement, the priest sprinkled the covering of the ark with blood. God looked upon that cleansing blood and so was able to live dwell with his people. It is likely that John draws on that imagery in 1 John 2, when he calls Jesus a propitiation. This is the same word that the Septuagint (the Greek OT) uses for the mercy seat upon the ark. Just as Israel found mercy in the temple, so we find mercy in the Christ.

The book of Hebrews doesn’t use ark imagery, but it does use temple imagery for Christ. Hebrews tell us in Chapter 10:20, that Christ’s flesh is the veil. The veil had a similar function to the mercy seat. It was a covering for the people of God.

We could add to this the parallels between David bringing the ark into Jerusalem and the pregnant Mary visiting her cousin. They can be found at the end of this article. These are used in the article I referenced to defend Mary being the ark. However, they can be used just as easily for defending Christ as the ark.

All in all, I’m not sure how the appearance of the ark after an appeal to the justice of God, can be primarily about Mary. In the overall context of Revelation, the appearance of the ark is about the coming judgment on the harlot, the beast, and the dragon.

It should be noted, however, that there is a sense in which we can speak of the ark as Mary. We need to remember that symbols in scripture are often multivalent. It is not just the mercy seat that appears, but the ark of the covenant. Various authors have argued that the ark is a mini-picture of the cosmos, with the mercy seat as the throne room of God and the cosmos as the box that is underneath it. Since it is the ark of the covenant it can be understood as the new creation of God or the church of God. Colossians 3 tells us that our lives are hidden in the risen Messiah. The fact that the ark of the covenant is in heaven is a confirmation to us that we too are raised with him.

In this sense then, Mary as a type of the church of Christ, is also, with all the other saints assumed into heaven with Christ.

What about the doctrine?

Let us grant for a moment that the ark might refer to Mary in Revelation 11. Would this provide proof for the doctrine of the assumption of Mary? I don’t think so. Symbols don’t work that way, particularly in the book of revelation. The ark may symbolize Mary, but does that mean her flesh came to heaven? Perhaps we have a merely symbolic use of Mary. The women, who we assume is Mary, never enters heaven in the following chapter. What happened? This would suggest a symbolic use.

These stretchings of exegesis suggest that tradition has invented Mary, rather than honoring her as she is revealed in scripture. As the Belgic confession says, they (The Roman church, but we could add the Greek church as well) dishonor the saints by giving them these strange honors. Traditions that support such exegesis are worse than the autonomous protestant interpreter (at least you can argue with him). They are worse because they demand that all Christians submit themselves to this irrational exegesis.

How do we know it’s true?

By James

On April 11, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics, typology

I believe that we need to come to scripture as literature. We look for patterns, we look for motifs, and we look for allusions. In doing so, we reflect the way in which the apostles read the scripture. When Paul responds to the Galatians he argues from one of the patterns he has found. It is not an explicit pattern. Rather, he sees it through discerning the patterns of the text.

We won’t go into the full argument, but Paul sees a pattern in the lives of Isaac and Ishmael, as recorded in Genesis. Isaac is the son of freedom and promise. Ishmael is the son of slavery. By reading and re-reading Genesis, as well as studying the revelation of God in Christ, Paul has discerned this pattern in the scripture. We might call it a typology.

I believe this exegesis is repeatable. We need to discern the scriptures using Paul’s hermeneutic. This is not well received by some. They argue that this is a hermeneutical method that has no guards. There is no methodology. I have to admit that to some degree that this hermeneutic is subjective. It is inductive rather than deductive. However, there are guards against false interpretation.

There are two types of guards: Negative guards and positive guards. Negative guards are those which demonstrate deniability. Because this method is inductive, the positive guards do not necessarily demonstrate absolute truth. Instead, they demonstrate that the typology that we have seen is either strong or weak.

a. Negative guards:

Demonstrate Contradiction. The typology either contradicts another strong typology (The rock is explicitly used as an image of Yahweh or Christ. If one were to connect it to Gentiles this would be strange) or a contradiction of something that is revealed. (You could use typology to argue that Mary, mother of Christ, was sinless. This contradicts the message of the book of Romans, where this characteristic belongs to Christ exclusively.
Demonstrate a more thorough alternative: The books of the Bible build upon one another creating a complex whole. You could see the salvation of Christ’s blood in the scarlet thread of Rahab. You could also demonstrate how the story of the first few chapters of Joshua mirror the story of the Passover and how Christ’s death mimics that. (This overlaps with the first rule as well, where we might have opposing or contradictory typologies)
Demonstrate that an external source was used for the typology rather than an internal source: Is the interpreter using patterns from Greek philosophy or from modern science to structure his typology? There is some legitimacy to this, but we are no longer discussing meaning, but application. The scriptures have their own internal rules for understanding itself. It needs to be understood through its own internal structures.

b. Positive guards (The more of these you have the stronger your argument is)

Demonstrate patterns: Repeated patterns in scripture reveal typologies. When they align closely they strengthen your position. Breaks in the pattern can be revealing for what the text is trying to teach us.
Demonstrate repetition: When patterns are repeated often your argument is strengthened. However, repetition is not about patterns exclusively. The scriptures repeat concepts as well. For example, the idea of the Messiah is an important concept in scripture.
Demonstrate verbal allusion: If there is a word or phrase that is prominent in another part of scripture, there may be a connection to that part of scripture. Jesus breathes on his disciples in John 20, alluding to the God’s breath of life upon Adam. The same Greek word is used in the New Testament and the Old Testament.
Demonstrate a conceptual allusion: This is not as strong as a verbal allusion. If you can combine this with a verbal allusion or demonstrate a pattern, you will have a stronger argument.
Relative closeness: If you discern a pattern in the same book or in another book by the same writer, you have a stronger pattern than if you draw lines from that book to a similar pattern found in a book written a thousand years later.

Vanhoozer’s Quantum Leap

By James

On April 1, 2017

In Genesis, Hermeneutics

(Full disclosure, I believe that Genesis 1 is history. It is literary history but this doesn’t mean that it is not describing a situation, which we could recognize if we were there during the 6 days of Creation.)

Vanhoozer wants to argue for “theological literality.” He means that Genesis 1 should me read literarily as well as literally. We need to read Genesis 1 as literature teaching us theological truths about God. Augustine and Calvin read Genesis 1 in this way. They both looked at the text and not only read the actual words but found in those words something of deeper significance. They found the all-sovereign God, who has almighty power to create the world through his word.

Vanhoozer takes another step. This means that Creationists who are trying to read this passage literally, that is, emphasizing the fact that each part of the passage has a historical referent are looking at this passage the wrong way. They are not enjoying and dwelling in the literary nature of the text. They are treating the biblical statements as scientifically verifiable statements.

I agree. To an extent. We have a false dichotomy in our society today. Literal is set against literary. We forget that writing history is a literary venture. More importantly, we forget that the Bible is a type of literature. We need to re-discover the world of internal biblical symbolism. God is telling a story that is rich in detail and color. We need to see how the stories of the Bible develop, as well as discovering the themes that are embedded in those stories. When we do so it enriches our reading of the whole Bible. The Bible is not science, it is literature.

At the same time, Vanhoozer exercises the folly of modern theology. He thinks that he can jump from a literary hermeneutic to a denial of the historical nature of the days of Genesis. This is his quantum leap. He moves from a literary reading to the possibility fo denying a historical reading (a phenomenological reading). We can read Genesis 1 as a 6-day event but he argues that this is an unimportant doctrine. He values other interpretations as well, as long as they emphasize the literary nature of Genesis 1. The important doctrine is the doctrine of “creation out of nothing” and the “sovereignty of God.”

He believes that this hermeneutic will not affect the reading of the rest of scripture. Unfortunately, the historical details of Genesis 1 have just become a 3rd order doctrine. This won’t affect the rest of scripture? The conclusion I come to is that as long as one can find a literary explanation for the passage, the historical details are up for discussion. When we study the gospels, we can appreciate their high literary structure. Does this mean that their historical nature may be questioned?

We could imagine that Vanhoozer would say that the important thing in the gospels is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification. Therefore, we don’t need to worry if people deny that he was a Jew. We don’t need to worry whether Pontius Pilate was a real person. The 12 disciples of Jesus are symbolically significant. Whether he actually had 12 disciples? We don’t know.

Vanhoozer foolishly separates doctrine from history. He becomes just like the men he is arguing against. Creationists often deconstruct the text to one important element; scientifically verifiable facts. Vanhoozer deconstructs the text to his favorite element: “theological literality.” He loses the fullness of a text that is both historical and yet is designed by God in order to beautify the internal structure of the story of scripture. He fails to fully appreciate the theological literality of the Genesis text.

Lutheran exegesis

By James

On March 25, 2017

In Hermeneutics

The attributes of God the son are shared with the human nature continually and yet somehow the human nature remains ontologically human. A short example of hermeneutics gone wrong from a recent paper I wrote on confessional materiels in the Lutheran church. There is a failure here to realize that if a certain understanding of a passage leads you to strained reasoning about the natures of Christ, it might be better to go back and re-look at other possibilities for your exegesis.

Here is the segment:

The Lutheran case is much more subtle. There is much to commend about it. They are determined to the hold to the unity of the two persons of Christ. I appreciate their commitment to the term Theotokos, that is, Mary was the God-bearer. Further, I appreciate their commitment to the fact that the Son of God suffered in the flesh. This, of course, should be tempered by an understanding that this suffering is not ontological, but relational.

The great problem is in their understanding of the communicato idiomatum. The communicatio idiomatum is the sharing of the attributes of the persons with one another. In this way, the Son can exercise the omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. They are careful, however, to say that this is limited. They reject that the human nature is present everywhere in the same way the divine nature is present. But they affirm shared attributes. God the Son shares his attributes with his human nature in a static, undefined way. Part of the source of this problem is that the Lutherans want a unity in the nature of Christ; that somehow the divine nature in the Son of God became human flesh. It would be better to say, the person of the Son of God took on human flesh.

They also misunderstand the reformed understanding of the communication idiomatum. The reformed do believe that the divine nature shares attributes with the human nature. This is, however, done through the Spirit. Thus attributes are given are given to the son at certain points during his life, so that he can discern the minds of men and be aware of the future, but they are not shared in a static continual sense.

The Lutheran understanding, though thankfully not changing the essence of the son, seems to affirm the static, continual sense of the communication idiomatum. In this way, the Lutherans do not leave room for a maturing Jesus. They also end up with an apparent contradiction.The attributes of God the son are shared with the human nature continually and yet somehow the human nature remains ontologically human.

The ultimate problem, however, lies with the source of this document. The Lutherans want to affirm the physical presence of Christ at the table because of his words, “This is my body.” If this were a necessary interpretation of that phrase, the Lutherans would be right to come to their convoluted understanding of the natures of Christ. We would have to affirm that there is something mysterious going on here. If, however, there were an alternate understanding of that text that did not lead to the strained reasoning they have in this passage, it might be better to take that understanding. This would lead to an understanding of the two natures that would be less prone to losing the real humanity Christ, even as he rules in heaven today. What goes on at the Lord’s Supper is still a mystery, of course. How does the Spirit cause us to ascend into the throne room of Christ? What does it mean that we eat of Christ’s flesh? With a spiritual understanding of “This is my body” we can admit this mystery, and further, the mystery of the incarnation, without losing sight of the full humanity of Christ.