The cart before the horse?

Among scholars and students today, the field of biblical interpretation is divided into two distinct yet overlapping categories: exegesis and hermeneutics [...]

For our purposes at this point, the most important thing is that in our contemporary way of interpreting the Bible, we begin with exegesis and only then turn to hermeneutics [...] We move from the narrow to the broad. And our reason for this is that we believe starting with the broad would lead us to read our own theological ideas into the passage rather than reading the passages own meaning out of its context [...]

At this point, we have to recognize that the way we are trying to ensure accuracy in biblical interpretation is fundamentally different from the way the early church went about the same task. The Fathers had no qualms whatsoever about reading preconceived theological ideas into a given passages, as long as they got those ideas from elsewhere in the Bible.

pp.109-110, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

Observing how this works in Irenaeus and Augustine:

[For Ireneaus] the key to interpreting the parables (which he finds obscure and therefore difficult) is clearer statements elsewhere in Scripture and not the context of the parables themselves. And [for] Augustine, notice that when there is ambiguity about a certain passage, one should first consult the rule of faith (which he describes as both the clearer passages of Scripture and the church's authoritative statements about it), and only if that fails should one consult the context of the passage[:]

"When words used literally cause ambiguity in Scripture, we must first determine whether we have mispunctuated or misconstrued them. When investigation reveals an uncertainty as to how a locution should be pointed or construed, the rule of faith should be consulted as it is found in the more open places of the Scriptures and in the authority of the Church... But if both meanings, or all of them, in the event that there are several, remain ambiguous after the faith has been consulted, then it is necessary to examine the context of the preceding and following parts surrounding the ambiguous place."

On Doc., bk. 3, chap.2

(pp.112-113, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

Questions to ask of scripture

What are the questions we should ask when approaching a passage of Scripture?

The first question we must ask of every biblical text is simply this—what does it tell us about God? What does it say about who he is and about what he does?

The second question is: what does this text say about us human beings? What are we meant to be and what has gone wrong?

The third and final question is: what has God done about this and what does he expect of us in the light of what he has done? (source)

I quite like those, so will try and remember them. I may want to change it a little to emphasise that it is God speaking to us, but generally I think they're quite helpful. So like most helpful stuff I know I'll forget, I'll blog them.

Thoughts on finding Christ in the OT

Over on Dave Bish's blog I've been involved in one the monthly discussions about how Christ is revealed in the OT. So often the two 'sides' seem to go round and round and I have often felt that there was more going on beneath the surface than what shows above the water. But I've never really got what.

You could say that one group just doesn't really believe that God is Trinity, or that the other is denying the newness of the incarnation. However I don't believe that is true of either group of regular commenters all of whom I have great respect for.... Which is not to say that we all don't have a great deal to learn.

However, listening to Mike Reeves on MP3 today suddenly things became a lot clearer. Commenting on reading the OT as all being about Christ he comments:

the key issue is I don't always have to talk about the incarnation, which is what we tend to mean when we say Christ. I don't always have to talk about that. When we say "do I have to go to Christ?" the kind of language we are using is using is "do I have to fast-forward through time to the event of the incarnation when Christ became flesh?" No you don't have to do that. But you have to be talking about the true and living God who is Christ. If you are not talking about him you must be talking about another God [...] That doesn't mean that as you are preaching on Hosea 11 you have to go "oh now lets jump into the New Testament". No you don't have to do that at all. But you must be talking about the same person. I suppose that's the key. So I'm not saying you always have to nip into the New Testament. You don't at all. But you must always be proclaiming Christ. You don't always have to be proclaiming the incarnation of Christ.

(34:43-> of this lecture, the whole series here)

I don't think you would find Graeme Goldsworthy saying that (correct me if I'm wrong). It may be Trinitarian hermeneutics but is it Gospel-centred hermeneutics?

Anyhow, although I am struggling to know where I should be, I think I understand enough to make some wild generalisations:

Group 1 is looking for the person

• This group is concerned about finding the second person of the Trinity. They are looking for God the Son. They tend to be thinking vertically about the relationship of God to humanity. They would stress that you cannot know God except as Trinity.

Group 2 is looking for the gospel-event

• This group is concerned about finding the Messiah. They are looking for the promised perfect human (king/priest etc). They will be thinking horizontally about the story of the bible/world. They would stress that you cannot know God apart from the death and resurrection of Christ.

I don't think I need go to the effort of pointing out the dangers on both sides. Doing one and not the other is clearly disastrous.

Defending grammatico-historical exegesis

Sounds like an important title doesn't it. Basically it means interpreting the bible with the intention of finding out "what the biblical author really meant" (and from that then understanding what God is trying to communicate). Although historically it is a strongly a held way of interpreting the bible it is beginning to be criticised in some quarters.

Anyway I was just reading the Westminster Theological Journal for Fall 2006 (thank you OU), and in particular an article by Peter Enns. I thought I would quote a little from it in case anyone has time on their hands to read it.

I am not arguing, implicitly or explicitly, that Second Temple studies should control how we understand Paul over against the history of the Christian church. Rather, our increased understanding of that context should, with great joy, be brought into a deepening and broadening of how we understand Paul— even if that deepening and broadening presents challenges. The context does not control Paul, the Spirit does. But the "Paul" that the Spirit controls was a first-century Jew. And a deeper understanding of that environment cannot be ignored. Neither am I saying that the church "needs" to understand Second Temple Judaism in order to understand Paul. That is not the case, for myself or Machen or Vos, and it is quite off-topic. The issue is depth and breadth for those engaged in a serious study of Scripture. And for that purpose, what Machen and Vos model for us is this: it is not simply the OT that forms the only proper background for the study of Paul, but Paul's context, Second Temple Judaism, as well, To understand the Jewish background better is to understand Paul/better.

[...]

this historical study of Scripture is a reminder of how very near God is to us, how down and dirty he gets. We sire all prone, in an academic setting at least, to speak of God in "distant" language, as a concept, an idea, a principle, a subject of study—an occupational hazard. But we all need to be reminded—and at some times more than others—what is so foundational to the gospel, which are the lengths to which God went to bridge that distance.

(Bible in context: The Continuing Vitality of Reformed Biblical Scholarship. By: Enns, Peter. Westminster Theological Journal, Fall2006, Vol. 68 Issue 2, p203-218)

What I like about Enns on this subject is how keen he always is to bring God into the equation when he is so often tragically forgotten. In this article as in his book and other articles he draws a lot on "Calvin's" doctrine of accommodation which I have benefited so much from.

Further reading (more for me than you)

• Inerrancy and New Testament Exegesis, by RT France
• John Calvin’s Concept of Divine Accommodation: A Hermeneutical Corrective, by Michael Tinker
• Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving beyond a Modernist Impasse, by Peter Enns